No? What they describe in the article doesn't seem particularly unusual to me.
I have a picture (minor blood, no real gore) from when I was ran over by a car (my car, parking brake failure). It slammed me through a glass door, opened me up a bit. I couldn't stop smiling.
I was back at work the day after a major shoulder surgery, and wisdom teeth extraction, both times without pain medicine.
Other people seemed to think that was weird, and after reading the article, I guess it might be. I get migraines, but regularly smash, slice, etc. myself without it particularly bothering me.
As long as you're aware-ish of damage to your body, you don't actually need it to hurt.
"Where's the situation where it isn't preferable to just walk over to the couch and use the TV and controller?"
I have remote play fired up now. I've been waiting on IOS for a while.
There are a couple of situations where forms of remote play is nice. I regularly use Steam Link to play on my big TV from my powerful desktop downstairs.
Right now, I'm lying in bed due to severe congestion. I don't really feel like sitting up out on the couch. I can log into fortnite and manage my character (and collect the daily bonuses) without leaving my bed.
It's also handy for playing PS4 exclusives while downstairs in my chair. I'll do this when I have long build or test jobs, or someone's playing the Switch on the TV.
"Studies in the UK found them to be a net contributor, maybe the US is different but given that you don't have free healthcare I'd be surprised."
The issue (for legal immigrants) isn't so much that they aren't net contributors. The problem is that they are a net negative for other workers.
The government of Canada and Harvard Unviersity looked at immigration in the US, Canada, and Mexico. They found that a 10% migration-induced shift in the labor market led to a shift in weekly wages of 4% in the other direction.
On a macro level, this looks like a good thing - for example, trading 40% more workers for only a 16% decline in weekly wages seems like an easy way to grow the economy, and a net win for the country. On the other hand, it really sucks for the people who on average are earning 16% less.
It's even worse than it might otherwise sound, as immigrants disproportionately move to major cities, increasing demand (and prices) for housing, as well as healthcare and mass transit. Higher skilled workers (like Canada tends to attract with their merit-based system) depress wages for the professional class (who pay taxes), disproportionately lowering overall tax revenues (even though some immigrants pay significantly more in taxes than they use in services). In the US, with it's reliance on family class immigrants and illegal aliens, tax revenues aren't affected much (as the poor pay little in taxes), but income inequality goes up.
In the US, that migration-induced wage suppression disproportionately affects poorer workers, and as such ends up being significantly higher for individual workers than merely 4% for every 10% shift.
In other words, while immigrants can be a net contributor for the *country*, they can still be horrible for the Citizens.
" the police DO have an override- they did exactly that. They boxed in the car and forced it to stop. "
It works just as well on humans. A couple days ago the police were trying to arrest someone (it looked like a shoplifting case) and the driver of the car she got into. The driver decided it would be a good idea to drive with an officer halfway in the car. I pulled my giant truck in front of the car to discourage that, and a few seconds later a cruiser showed up and boxed them on the other side.
When there's nowhere to go, people tend to stop. Computers do too.
This is a common problem, and can also be accomplished by getting a rogue employee in, getting an backdoor in version control that eventually gets pushed, or stealing developer credentials.
That's why the crypto hardware my company is working on has a four part process. To do an update, we first have to sign the firmware. Next, a third party code audit company has to countersign after auditing any changes and building their own identical build. Next, the customer must use their admin credential and upgrade PIN. This wipes all the key material from the HSM. Finally, it must be physically placed into a USB port on the machine.
We also have a HSM controlled counter in every firmware we sign, so it's not like we could hide any nefarious builds without customers noticing we never released firmware number X.
Technically, the government isn't conducting surveillance. Corporations are conducting legal surveillance (they require no warrant), and are then voluntarily providing it to the government.
If the government had requested the surveillance be performed, or it was of a type and nature that it could only be used by the government, there would be a point to be made that it was government surveillance, and that the companies were acting in the stead of the government. Neither of those is the case. License plate data is used for recovering vehicles that are in default; the government is not prohbited from accepting lawfully gained information from outside sources.
"Entering the country illegally is a very low level crime."
No, it's not. It's a matter of national security.
"And despite this, people who are detained are being locked up without due process for years at a time."
This is a problem. The speedy trial act sets limits of around 70 days after indictment for the trial. We should be deporting people much, much faster. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The information was neither searched nor seized. It was provided voluntarily. The fourth amendment does not apply to consensual acts - if you invite the government to search your home, you can't claim the search was illegal.
" the racial differences are utterly swamped by individual differences, so it makes no sense whatsoever to make assumptions about individuals based on racial characteristics."
That's an oft-quoted and rather misleading retort to observations of population differences.
As an example, suppose we have two populations - A and B. Population A has a mean height of 5.5 feet, with a standard deviation of 6 inches. Population B has a mean height of 5 feet, with a standard deviation of 4 inches. In this hypothetical scenario, distribution is normal, and the best basketball players are 7 feet tall or taller.
With a scenario like that, there is more difference within the populations than between them. That doesn't change the fact that 0.13% of population A are over 7 feet, while population B is a small fraction of that.
Likewise, suppose we have two populations - one with a mean IQ of 100, and one population with a mean IQ of 85. Both have a standard deviation of 15.
If 85 is around the point at which people are economically productive, and 130 is the point at which people are able to drive forward technological progress and growth, there will be a huge difference in the outcome of the two populations.
For the population with a mean IQ of 100, 16% of the population will be below the economic productivity threshold, and 2.3% will be responsible for driving the society forward. For the population with a mean IQ of 85, 50% of the population will be below the productivity threshold, and 0.13% will help drive society forward. One can build a functional, stable modern society, and the other cannot.
The problem is that while we should treat people as individuals, we should also build societal institutions to serve populations. Algorithms designed to learn from data are going to have some of these biases.
AI is likely going to make a lot of the discrimination worse, because it has access to much better predictors than skin colour. If (for example) black people as a class are more likely to commit crimes, but identification of who is black is difficult, the predictive value of judging by skin colour can still be relatively low (since we don't know who is black and who isn't). AI, on the other hand, can use proxies to get at the underlying data, which will have the effect of amplifying the effect of these biases.
A quick example of a situation like this is the "white" crime rate. Before Hispanics were broken out separately, the white to black offender ratio (even for crimes like murder, which have low selective enforcement) reflected negatively on the black community. As crime statistics have started to identify hispanics as hispanic instead of white, the white crime rate has dropped, increasing the black-white offender disparity.
If there are traits that correlate better with race than skin tone (or even combinations of traits), we can end up with situations where a black individual is rated at a much higher risk of "potential offending", even if we completely remove race from the data itself. We see this now with software used in sentencing - it doesn't matter if we have skin colour data. The training will try to explain the higher rate of offending, and will use whatever traits it can to do so.
Algorithms don't discriminate if you remove the kind of data (race, age, etc.) that would allow them to make categorizations or judgments based on that data.
That's just it, they still do, and that's what pisses people off.
You can train an algorithm for example to try to detect the likelihood of criminality (as is the case for sentencing recommendation tools). You can try to take race out of the data, but it's still going to be there. If you don't give it race, it will start using names. Remove the names, and it can weight things like lack of college or economic condition more. You can deny it that, and it will weight zip code more. Remove that from the training data, and it will weight familial status higher. Remove that, and you have age of first offense. Remove all of those, and it will weight certain crimes higher.
At the end of the day, if you have a system designed to predict criminality, it's going to be racist, because there are underlying differences in the behaviour of individuals (as a class) of different demographic groups. You can try to stop those biases, but it will simply mean that the training process (which is designed to explain data) is forced to use proxies for those differences, instead of those specific differences. In other words, if black people commit more crimes (which they do, as a class), and you try to train a crime prediction algorithm on data with any predictive use, it's going to end up trying to assign that increased criminality to whatever attributes it can correlate - trying to do its job of accounting for the data.
It's no different than trying to do a "Marfan syndrome" predictor. The disease disproportionately affects tall people. If you remove height from the data you feed it, it's just going to try to achieve the same output to explain the data. It will look at what sets tall people apart from the rest of the population, and use that to explain the variability.
If for some reason the best correlation is that tall people are more likely to be skiiers, it will weight skiing as a risk factor for Marfans. It will still get the tall people, but now it will be less accurate and will hit people it shouldn't.
Because there's something called Compromise, which happens when you have a President, rather than a dictator?
He was elected to do a job. That requires getting a Republican congress to actually do something. As you've seen from the past few presidents, that's not an easy thing to do, unless all you want is tax cuts.
New York actually is a donor state. California suffers from problems of its own making, and this post contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or other reproductive harm.
It's illegal to choose which documents an employer will accept for verification of work eligibility. This is done so that (for example) a permanent resident who can legally work isn't discriminated against because the employer will only accept a US birth certificate. That is discrimination on the basis of national origin. If the government is going to take that standpoint, they need to make sure that each and every accepted document is secure.
REAL ID doesn't deal with natural origin, just lawful status. Add in free issue to all Citizens, and you have a system that is secure, verifiable, and doesn't discriminate against poor US citizens.
Then I wouldn't be driving. If necessary, I would move to an area with mass transit. That's what happens when people get old, or commit DUIs, or are otherwise unable to safely operate the vehicle. It's called following the law.
"your right to work"
I'm an immigrant. An immigrant of Mexican heritage. I, *like any other law abiding immigrant*, developed my skills to the point I was qualified to apply for a work permit. After demonstrating that there were no Citizens qualified to do the work, we applied for, and received, a Work Permit.
When I was laid off by that employer, thus taking away my right to work, **I stopped working**, because that's the law. I eventually was able to qualify for Permanent Residency, after I demonstrated sufficient work experience in in-demand skills, English proficiency, educational level, and that I had complied with the law and did not have a criminal record.
You know what I would have done if they took away my right to work, and I couldn't work in the country I lived in with my spouse, my residence, and all my property?
I would leave the country by the date required on my work permit, as required by law, because **I follow the law**.
"So what you say is rather asinine."
You're the one being asinine. It took me ten years to qualify to immigrate, because I follow the law. I'm asking no more of any of the illegals than I do myself. One does not immigrate by breaking the law.
Up until they commit the myriad of other offences, such as driving unlicensed, identity theft (often a felony), uttering false documents (often a felony), impersonating a US Citizen (a crime), failure to file taxes (also a crime), etc.
That's what the companies are trying to change, and their children are Citizens due to a bad interpretation of the constitution. Get them out - your parents breaking the law doesn't entitle you to the benefits from it.
" but they are pretty unlikely for your average Jose from Mexico."
That's the point.
Immigration is supposed to be beneficial for the country - it's not their job to be beneficial for you.
I'm a Mexican. I'm an immigrant. A legal immigrant. It took me about 10 years to qualify to immigrate to Canada, and I had to get a lot of things in order. There are only so many slots to immigrate, and it fell to me to figure out how to qualify. My family did, and here we are.
It's a good thing that Canada tried to pick the best immigrants - the ones that would be an asset (prior to the current PM). Unlike the time of my great-grandparents, Canada has socialized healthcare, and a welfare system - people need to pay their own way, or the system eventually collapses. That means being able to earn a decent wage, and having the education and language skills to do so.
"But it doesn't give employers any way to authenticate that the documents they receive are legit. I spoke to multiple employment attorneys about this, and the best you can do is make copies of the ID presented to you and keep them on file. This is your due diligence - proof that you attempted to comply with the law to the best of your ability should the employee's legal status come into question. "
The system is in place to fix this. REAL ID isn't about spying on citizens - it's about stopping document fraud. It requires security features, requires internet verification be available so that stolen, altered, or counterfeit documents can be detected. It requires biometrics and document ID numbers in order to help avoid duplicate IDs, and requires proof of lawful status for issuing. It includes features that indicate that the document is REAL ID compliant.
We have an electronic system (e-Verify) for employers to use to upload scans of documents. Technology like DigiMarc (invisible watermarks for security authentication) and digital signatures (in the barcode, for example, with NJ) can easily be combined with OCR to detect altered or counterfeit documents. It would be trivial to extend e-Verify to cellular apps to make it really easy to verify.
Unfortunately, states like California don't want to stop illegals from working, and that makes things difficult. You can use a voter registration card to work, and the government of California doesn't verify citizenship status before issuing you one. Add in a stolen SSN, and there's nothing an employer can do.
Until they turn 18, at which point they have failed to report, and are personally responsible for breaking the law.
"these people may be able to claim the right of residence here through adverse possession"
Residence isn't conveyed through adverse possession. If their possession is adverse, then they are themselves committing the harmful act, providing the mens rea.
"We are all illegal. We stole this country from the people that lived here."
My family immigrated, legally, from conquerors, but that's neither here nor there. The native american population is a cautionary tale on what happens if you don't control immigration.
"At what point has the baby taken an action that is considered a crime?"
6 months after they turn 18, at which point they personally become guilty of failure to report. Prior to that, it was their parents obligation to present to the government, like any other immigrant.
Slashdot Mirror
"Isn't pain necessary?"
No? What they describe in the article doesn't seem particularly unusual to me.
I have a picture (minor blood, no real gore) from when I was ran over by a car (my car, parking brake failure). It slammed me through a glass door, opened me up a bit. I couldn't stop smiling.
I was back at work the day after a major shoulder surgery, and wisdom teeth extraction, both times without pain medicine.
Other people seemed to think that was weird, and after reading the article, I guess it might be. I get migraines, but regularly smash, slice, etc. myself without it particularly bothering me.
As long as you're aware-ish of damage to your body, you don't actually need it to hurt.
"Where's the situation where it isn't preferable to just walk over to the couch and use the TV and controller?"
I have remote play fired up now. I've been waiting on IOS for a while.
There are a couple of situations where forms of remote play is nice. I regularly use Steam Link to play on my big TV from my powerful desktop downstairs.
Right now, I'm lying in bed due to severe congestion. I don't really feel like sitting up out on the couch. I can log into fortnite and manage my character (and collect the daily bonuses) without leaving my bed.
It's also handy for playing PS4 exclusives while downstairs in my chair. I'll do this when I have long build or test jobs, or someone's playing the Switch on the TV.
"Studies in the UK found them to be a net contributor, maybe the US is different but given that you don't have free healthcare I'd be surprised."
The issue (for legal immigrants) isn't so much that they aren't net contributors. The problem is that they are a net negative for other workers.
The government of Canada and Harvard Unviersity looked at immigration in the US, Canada, and Mexico. They found that a 10% migration-induced shift in the labor market led to a shift in weekly wages of 4% in the other direction.
On a macro level, this looks like a good thing - for example, trading 40% more workers for only a 16% decline in weekly wages seems like an easy way to grow the economy, and a net win for the country. On the other hand, it really sucks for the people who on average are earning 16% less.
It's even worse than it might otherwise sound, as immigrants disproportionately move to major cities, increasing demand (and prices) for housing, as well as healthcare and mass transit. Higher skilled workers (like Canada tends to attract with their merit-based system) depress wages for the professional class (who pay taxes), disproportionately lowering overall tax revenues (even though some immigrants pay significantly more in taxes than they use in services). In the US, with it's reliance on family class immigrants and illegal aliens, tax revenues aren't affected much (as the poor pay little in taxes), but income inequality goes up.
In the US, that migration-induced wage suppression disproportionately affects poorer workers, and as such ends up being significantly higher for individual workers than merely 4% for every 10% shift.
In other words, while immigrants can be a net contributor for the *country*, they can still be horrible for the Citizens.
Visa overstays are between 25 and 40 percent of illegal aliens in the US. Most come across the border illegally, hence the wall.
" the police DO have an override- they did exactly that. They boxed in the car and forced it to stop. "
It works just as well on humans. A couple days ago the police were trying to arrest someone (it looked like a shoplifting case) and the driver of the car she got into. The driver decided it would be a good idea to drive with an officer halfway in the car. I pulled my giant truck in front of the car to discourage that, and a few seconds later a cruiser showed up and boxed them on the other side.
When there's nowhere to go, people tend to stop. Computers do too.
That is what the self destructing enclosure is for. Light, temperature, tamper sensor.
This is a common problem, and can also be accomplished by getting a rogue employee in, getting an backdoor in version control that eventually gets pushed, or stealing developer credentials.
That's why the crypto hardware my company is working on has a four part process. To do an update, we first have to sign the firmware. Next, a third party code audit company has to countersign after auditing any changes and building their own identical build. Next, the customer must use their admin credential and upgrade PIN. This wipes all the key material from the HSM. Finally, it must be physically placed into a USB port on the machine.
We also have a HSM controlled counter in every firmware we sign, so it's not like we could hide any nefarious builds without customers noticing we never released firmware number X.
We really don't want to get beaten by pipes.
Technically, the government isn't conducting surveillance. Corporations are conducting legal surveillance (they require no warrant), and are then voluntarily providing it to the government.
If the government had requested the surveillance be performed, or it was of a type and nature that it could only be used by the government, there would be a point to be made that it was government surveillance, and that the companies were acting in the stead of the government. Neither of those is the case. License plate data is used for recovering vehicles that are in default; the government is not prohbited from accepting lawfully gained information from outside sources.
"Entering the country illegally is a very low level crime."
No, it's not. It's a matter of national security.
"And despite this, people who are detained are being locked up without due process for years at a time."
This is a problem. The speedy trial act sets limits of around 70 days after indictment for the trial. We should be deporting people much, much faster. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The information was neither searched nor seized. It was provided voluntarily. The fourth amendment does not apply to consensual acts - if you invite the government to search your home, you can't claim the search was illegal.
Vote? Lobby? The NRA does a pretty decent job of encouraging both.
" the racial differences are utterly swamped by individual differences, so it makes no sense whatsoever to make assumptions about individuals based on racial characteristics."
That's an oft-quoted and rather misleading retort to observations of population differences.
As an example, suppose we have two populations - A and B. Population A has a mean height of 5.5 feet, with a standard deviation of 6 inches. Population B has a mean height of 5 feet, with a standard deviation of 4 inches. In this hypothetical scenario, distribution is normal, and the best basketball players are 7 feet tall or taller.
With a scenario like that, there is more difference within the populations than between them. That doesn't change the fact that 0.13% of population A are over 7 feet, while population B is a small fraction of that.
Likewise, suppose we have two populations - one with a mean IQ of 100, and one population with a mean IQ of 85. Both have a standard deviation of 15.
If 85 is around the point at which people are economically productive, and 130 is the point at which people are able to drive forward technological progress and growth, there will be a huge difference in the outcome of the two populations.
For the population with a mean IQ of 100, 16% of the population will be below the economic productivity threshold, and 2.3% will be responsible for driving the society forward. For the population with a mean IQ of 85, 50% of the population will be below the productivity threshold, and 0.13% will help drive society forward. One can build a functional, stable modern society, and the other cannot.
The problem is that while we should treat people as individuals, we should also build societal institutions to serve populations. Algorithms designed to learn from data are going to have some of these biases.
AI is likely going to make a lot of the discrimination worse, because it has access to much better predictors than skin colour. If (for example) black people as a class are more likely to commit crimes, but identification of who is black is difficult, the predictive value of judging by skin colour can still be relatively low (since we don't know who is black and who isn't). AI, on the other hand, can use proxies to get at the underlying data, which will have the effect of amplifying the effect of these biases.
A quick example of a situation like this is the "white" crime rate. Before Hispanics were broken out separately, the white to black offender ratio (even for crimes like murder, which have low selective enforcement) reflected negatively on the black community. As crime statistics have started to identify hispanics as hispanic instead of white, the white crime rate has dropped, increasing the black-white offender disparity.
If there are traits that correlate better with race than skin tone (or even combinations of traits), we can end up with situations where a black individual is rated at a much higher risk of "potential offending", even if we completely remove race from the data itself. We see this now with software used in sentencing - it doesn't matter if we have skin colour data. The training will try to explain the higher rate of offending, and will use whatever traits it can to do so.
Algorithms don't discriminate if you remove the kind of data (race, age, etc.) that would allow them to make categorizations or judgments based on that data.
That's just it, they still do, and that's what pisses people off.
You can train an algorithm for example to try to detect the likelihood of criminality (as is the case for sentencing recommendation tools). You can try to take race out of the data, but it's still going to be there. If you don't give it race, it will start using names. Remove the names, and it can weight things like lack of college or economic condition more. You can deny it that, and it will weight zip code more. Remove that from the training data, and it will weight familial status higher. Remove that, and you have age of first offense. Remove all of those, and it will weight certain crimes higher.
At the end of the day, if you have a system designed to predict criminality, it's going to be racist, because there are underlying differences in the behaviour of individuals (as a class) of different demographic groups. You can try to stop those biases, but it will simply mean that the training process (which is designed to explain data) is forced to use proxies for those differences, instead of those specific differences. In other words, if black people commit more crimes (which they do, as a class), and you try to train a crime prediction algorithm on data with any predictive use, it's going to end up trying to assign that increased criminality to whatever attributes it can correlate - trying to do its job of accounting for the data.
It's no different than trying to do a "Marfan syndrome" predictor. The disease disproportionately affects tall people. If you remove height from the data you feed it, it's just going to try to achieve the same output to explain the data. It will look at what sets tall people apart from the rest of the population, and use that to explain the variability.
If for some reason the best correlation is that tall people are more likely to be skiiers, it will weight skiing as a risk factor for Marfans. It will still get the tall people, but now it will be less accurate and will hit people it shouldn't.
Because there's something called Compromise, which happens when you have a President, rather than a dictator?
He was elected to do a job. That requires getting a Republican congress to actually do something. As you've seen from the past few presidents, that's not an easy thing to do, unless all you want is tax cuts.
"In fact, as tax donor states, they pay for the whole damn country. "
California, for reference, receives $0.99 for every dollar they pay in taxes. They are hardly a "donor state" in any meaningful sense.
http://www.politifact.com/cali...
New York actually is a donor state. California suffers from problems of its own making, and this post contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or other reproductive harm.
The neighborhood started getting more diverse?
It's illegal to choose which documents an employer will accept for verification of work eligibility. This is done so that (for example) a permanent resident who can legally work isn't discriminated against because the employer will only accept a US birth certificate. That is discrimination on the basis of national origin. If the government is going to take that standpoint, they need to make sure that each and every accepted document is secure.
REAL ID doesn't deal with natural origin, just lawful status. Add in free issue to all Citizens, and you have a system that is secure, verifiable, and doesn't discriminate against poor US citizens.
"Well, if they took away your driving license"
Then I wouldn't be driving. If necessary, I would move to an area with mass transit. That's what happens when people get old, or commit DUIs, or are otherwise unable to safely operate the vehicle. It's called following the law.
"your right to work"
I'm an immigrant. An immigrant of Mexican heritage. I, *like any other law abiding immigrant*, developed my skills to the point I was qualified to apply for a work permit. After demonstrating that there were no Citizens qualified to do the work, we applied for, and received, a Work Permit.
When I was laid off by that employer, thus taking away my right to work, **I stopped working**, because that's the law. I eventually was able to qualify for Permanent Residency, after I demonstrated sufficient work experience in in-demand skills, English proficiency, educational level, and that I had complied with the law and did not have a criminal record.
You know what I would have done if they took away my right to work, and I couldn't work in the country I lived in with my spouse, my residence, and all my property?
I would leave the country by the date required on my work permit, as required by law, because **I follow the law**.
"So what you say is rather asinine."
You're the one being asinine. It took me ten years to qualify to immigrate, because I follow the law. I'm asking no more of any of the illegals than I do myself. One does not immigrate by breaking the law.
" It's a civil offense."
Up until they commit the myriad of other offences, such as driving unlicensed, identity theft (often a felony), uttering false documents (often a felony), impersonating a US Citizen (a crime), failure to file taxes (also a crime), etc.
"Those receiving DACA deferrals cannot naturalize. "
That's what the companies are trying to change, and their children are Citizens due to a bad interpretation of the constitution. Get them out - your parents breaking the law doesn't entitle you to the benefits from it.
" but they are pretty unlikely for your average Jose from Mexico."
That's the point.
Immigration is supposed to be beneficial for the country - it's not their job to be beneficial for you.
I'm a Mexican. I'm an immigrant. A legal immigrant. It took me about 10 years to qualify to immigrate to Canada, and I had to get a lot of things in order. There are only so many slots to immigrate, and it fell to me to figure out how to qualify. My family did, and here we are.
It's a good thing that Canada tried to pick the best immigrants - the ones that would be an asset (prior to the current PM). Unlike the time of my great-grandparents, Canada has socialized healthcare, and a welfare system - people need to pay their own way, or the system eventually collapses. That means being able to earn a decent wage, and having the education and language skills to do so.
"But it doesn't give employers any way to authenticate that the documents they receive are legit. I spoke to multiple employment attorneys about this, and the best you can do is make copies of the ID presented to you and keep them on file. This is your due diligence - proof that you attempted to comply with the law to the best of your ability should the employee's legal status come into question. "
The system is in place to fix this. REAL ID isn't about spying on citizens - it's about stopping document fraud. It requires security features, requires internet verification be available so that stolen, altered, or counterfeit documents can be detected. It requires biometrics and document ID numbers in order to help avoid duplicate IDs, and requires proof of lawful status for issuing. It includes features that indicate that the document is REAL ID compliant.
We have an electronic system (e-Verify) for employers to use to upload scans of documents. Technology like DigiMarc (invisible watermarks for security authentication) and digital signatures (in the barcode, for example, with NJ) can easily be combined with OCR to detect altered or counterfeit documents. It would be trivial to extend e-Verify to cellular apps to make it really easy to verify.
Unfortunately, states like California don't want to stop illegals from working, and that makes things difficult. You can use a voter registration card to work, and the government of California doesn't verify citizenship status before issuing you one. Add in a stolen SSN, and there's nothing an employer can do.
"They committed no crime in the eyes of the law."
Until they turn 18, at which point they have failed to report, and are personally responsible for breaking the law.
"these people may be able to claim the right of residence here through adverse possession"
Residence isn't conveyed through adverse possession. If their possession is adverse, then they are themselves committing the harmful act, providing the mens rea.
If the illegals just get deported, then the tech industry will be no better or worse off, but the workers in the US will be better off.
The fact that your parents rob a bank doesn't mean you get to keep the gains from it, even if they bought the car they gave you.
"We are all illegal. We stole this country from the people that lived here."
My family immigrated, legally, from conquerors, but that's neither here nor there. The native american population is a cautionary tale on what happens if you don't control immigration.
You get displaced.
"At what point has the baby taken an action that is considered a crime?"
6 months after they turn 18, at which point they personally become guilty of failure to report. Prior to that, it was their parents obligation to present to the government, like any other immigrant.