Patrolling the US Border Via Webcam 249
The BBC features a story today on a controversial effort to patrol the border between Mexico and Texas by means of 21 hidden cameras, the output of which is streamed online for viewers at home, who can then report suspected illegal border crossings; more than 130,000 people have registered to observe the streams, from as far afield as "Australia, Mexico, Colombia, Israel, New Zealand and the UK."
Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
They're hidden if they are difficult for people in the area to see. "hidden" is not the same as "secret".
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
2. Frail around for 5 minutes.
3. Take a smoke break and then google "bigfoot Mexican border".
4. If there are no relevant results, you're safe to cross.
5. If there are a few million hits and you find yourself on
The best part is that you're guaranteed not to be fired upon if spotted by the boarder patrol. Also you can claim you're just perpetrating a hoax if you're caught performing steps 1-3.
Security through obscurity never works.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Wear a Bigfoot costume and approach the border.
Since I first heard of this strange setup, I too have wondered why nobody has played with the cams, the potential for harmless shenanigans making fun of the security loonies is limitless.
There is no obscurity. (Score:5, Interesting)
Please. This isn't even slightly tricky. Time the sunset / shadows. That gives you the east-west position (and very accurately, too.) Local noon identifies local midnight (and every other local time) perfectly. So does sunset. Since the cameras are on the border, that reduces the problem to a very small one -- what portion(s) of the border match those times. Then go there (using GPS and holding a pic of the POV of the camera)... walk right up to it, grab it, throw it in the 4WD. Rinse, repeat. If the cameras are observing places where people can go, they're in places where people can get at them.
Also, borders aren't "square miles", they are linear miles. The problem is not as intractable as you want to think it is.
Offer me fifty grand per camera, as well as guaranteed legal immunity, and I'll go down there and hand the vast majority of em to you in a dusty heap in, oh, a couple of weeks or so. It'd be fun. :)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the square miles issue, yes, borders are linear. However, the cameras could be placed anywhere within, say, 200 yards of the border, so that you're looking at largish areas to search. Knowing that the camera is somewhere within a square block isn't the same thing as laying hands on it--and that's assuming that it
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're missing the point. Local noon is when the sun is straight up. When shadows go to minimum, or change sides. It's pretty obvious, if you've been outdoors a bit. Once you ID noon, you have every other hour. This tells you where you are, east west. And, because you're on the border, which, while not straight, is at least generally east west, the north south position is determine
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem. If you're supposed to detect passage of illegals on a feed that isn't real time... well, the planners of such stupidity will deserve what they get, which will no doubt be nothing. Unless it's a live feed, which of course is the only reasonable course here.
Re: (Score:2)
30-60 seconds won't screw up your shadow ID. Motion triggers might, but they miss slow movement and are easily fooled by camouflage, and so are very poor choices for incursion detection. Again, I doubt even drug-war-addled feds are that stupid.
Absurd! (Score:5, Funny)
I read on freerepublic that foreign IPs can carry tuberculosis and communism.
Stop or I'll show you my genitals! (Score:3, Funny)
How does this work? Defending border by webcam sounds like "Stop! Hold it right there! Or I'll start my video feed and show you my genitals". How is that wholesome for that matter?
Re: (Score:2)
If they do make it into the USA they face:
America's Secret ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement} Castles
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens [thenation.com]
"If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear."
Re:Stop or I'll show you my genitals! (Score:4, Interesting)
You contact the webcam base in the USA and the call the feds with the location.
So, essentially, you could spam the authorities and tell them where to go. I guess that could never be abused by drug smugglers or illegal immigrants, could it?
Duck! I can see you, move to your right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right (Score:4, Funny)
The only problem is that two minor features have not been implemented yet: audio and recipient selection.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Mexico isn't particularly thrilled about the mass-emigration from their country, as it's a reflection upon their government's inability to do anything meaningful or promote social progress within their own borders.
Mexico? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?
Re:Mexico? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?
... or to continuously report a bunch of fake border crossings all the time so that the real events drown in a sea of fake ones.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Caller: "I saw someone on the border cam! Go get him!"
Operator: "Let me review the last 5 minutes"
<5 seconds later>
Operator: "I didn't see anything from that camera in the past 5 minutes."
Re: (Score:2)
... or to continuously report a bunch of fake border crossings all the time so that the real events drown in a sea of fake ones.
I'm sure that will be a really funny story that you can share with all your new friends you make after you are tracked down by your IP and busted for kiddie porn.
Of course some other folks will have a really funny story about someone who thought crap flooding law enforcement with fake reports was a funny thing to do.
Well, what do you expect when you allow the people trying to cross into the country power to raise the alarm about people crossing into the country? Of course they're going to use it to their own advantage. They're already breaking one law, so I don't expect them to have any concerns about breaking another one to avoid getting caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt many Mexicans in the illegal border crossing business are afraid of U.S. law enforcement framing them for kiddie porn.
Mexico? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok yes, we see you. We will mark that crossing off our list of possibilities. Ok, a little further...there I can see you...keep going....now I can't, mark that with a flag or something.
Well played Border Control, well played.
Re: (Score:2)
The way to play that would be to point cams in one direction and patrol the others.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So this is for people to view and observe the border and report any activity right....well I guess this plan is already in the toilet now that people IN MEXICO can view the cameras and see exactly where they are pointed.
Ok yes, we see you. We will mark that crossing off our list of possibilities. Ok, a little further...there I can see you...keep going....now I can't, mark that with a flag or something.
Well played Border Control, well played.
I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines. Line our side of the border with antipersonnel landmines, everywhere except the legitimate entrances/checkpoints. Post highly visible signs in English and Spanish, and also with graphics in case the person is illiterate, warning that it is a minefield. The purpose of this is to establish a deterrent, not to actually hurt anyone (though if that happens, they can't say they weren't warned). Maybe those signs
Re: (Score:2)
I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines.
And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!" What, you didn't realize there is a significant amount of non-human traffic in those areas?
Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care? A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land - th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines.
And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!" What, you didn't realize there is a significant amount of non-human traffic in those areas?
Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care? A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land - they just send people out into the fields/paddies with poles in an attempt to blow up any mines before planting their rice (yes, we're talking about a country in southeast Asia). If mines didn't stop them from entering land they'd use multiple times, it's not likely to stop illegal aliens from attempting a one-time crossing.
The person who modded me "Funny" had the right idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How will Mexico ever improve if the people that want to make better lives for themselves leave for the US?
(For the record, I don't agree with the mines theory that the poster was joking about, either.)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Mexico has internet these days and that means they have more knowledge than any first rate university in the world at their fingertips.
First rate universities don't have the internet? I highly doubt that.
Re:Mexico? (Score:5, Informative)
So that's why the US is one of the few nations not to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty)..
Re: (Score:2)
Partially deflated hovercrafts, seems to work for the North Koreans at the DMZ.
Re:Mexico? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah - Landmines are to cheap. You aint thinking like an American Politician. It's got to cost at least 1 million per emplacement, ensure it can detect not only ilegals crossing the border but the drug runners, sniff out radioactive materials and shoot down exocet cruise missles and the damn idiot tourist who flys to close to the No Fly zone.
Don't forget it's got to be a long term defense contract that'll cost 10-20 billion dollars for a 10 year contract and give plenty of jobs to our favorite congress critters districts so they'll vote for him in the next election. That's the Real American Way.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw that movie (Score:2)
If only there were a way for them to stay on their side of the border,
yet still do work on our side of it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804529/ [imdb.com]
Stupid. (Score:2)
The moment these people are signedup and logged in -- that's when we'll know the locations and capabilities of those cameras.
Contest! Find the Cameras! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, crowdsourcing a problem like this shouldn't be hard - 21 cameras, lots of geeks, Google Earth? How long will they stay hidden? Let's have a contest to find the things!
AI (Score:2)
When in Rome... (Score:2)
So instead of lining some contractor's pocket how about we just do as the Romans did and actually patrol the damned border?
Sure boots on the ground isn't as flashy as a web cam but it might be actually effective.
Of course actual patrols might be too effective...
Re:When in Rome... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US border with Mexico is long. Patrolling it effectively would probably take more guards than we want to pay for. Furthermore, in situations like this were most of the time nothing is going on, guards tend to get bored, inattentive, and sleepy, which makes them miss things. Having lots of volunteers allows each one to monitor for a short time while alert and interested.
The Romans did not routinely use intensive foot patrols as you suggest. Their strategy was much like tat of the US, with walls instead of fences and occasional patrols.
Re: (Score:2)
We do have a standing army which we already pay.
Hadrian's wall had troops stationed in posts every 5000 feet along with observation towers and the occasional large garrison. If they could do it (in a foreign country none the less) we should be able to do it at home.
Re:When in Rome... (Score:4, Informative)
Using the army might work in times of peace, but at present the army is stretched thin by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt that they have personnel to spare. The Roman troops along Hadrian's Wall mostly stayed in the milecastles and the towers on either side. Intensive patrolling was not their strategy. Hadrian's Wall was only 73.5 miles long. The US border with Mexico is 1,969 miles long. To staff it the way the Romans staffed Hadrian's wall would require approximately 50,000 troops.
Re: (Score:2)
50000 cylon type robots would do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
That's less than half the troops we have accomplishing nothing of value in Iraq/Afganistan.
Plus, we could do two birds with one stone if we had the Army patrolling the border. They could run all sorts of training exercises up and down along the border.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I always thought we could just consolidate all US military bases into one, long skinny one along the border. :-)
The whole controversy is weird. It's like we're not allowed to have a border. You'd think it was Kashmir, but even India and Pakistan mange to have a little fun with it.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1689795,00.html [time.com]
I can't think of any other border where people act like it's an offense against the universe. Meanwhile, you see all sorts of anti-illegal immigration laws being tightene
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words it would be a relatively trivial task for our military if we weren't trying to police the world and engage in holy wars.
So it's like Metal Gear (Score:3, Funny)
I Feel Asleep.....
Re: (Score:2)
Modern surveillance systems a combination of manned patrols and surveillance systems would make a modern "Morice Line" practical. The purpose isn't to stop them all, just most of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Patrolling it effectively would probably take more guards than we want to pay for.
Couldn't we use some illegal Mexican immigrants ?
Dey tuk ur jerbs !!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually quite practical, especially with UAVs and manned surveillance posts, but there is little political support in Washington for effective border control.
It's easy to build small operating bases, easy to stage patrols to monitor what sensor and cameras detect, and while it would not halt border crossings it would reduce them to a more reasonable level.
What isn't easy is doing this when Mexico objects (failed narcostate that it is, every dime sent from Yanquiland is welcome) and when Mexicans in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they've got the vote, they are no longer "Mexicans". They are Americans.
Doesn't encourage Vigilantism (Score:5, Insightful)
...we would be concerned that the cameras might encourage vigilantism. That people would think they saw an illegal immigrant and then jump in their truck with a gun.
That criticism shows up at least twice in the BBC article, but it doesn't make sense to me. The cameras might attract some people already partial to vigilantism, but I don't believe they flat out encourage vigilantes in general.
What's more, the locations of the cameras are secret; otherwise immigrants and traffickers would learn to avoid all those spots within days. The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
I don't know whether I agree or not with the program, but the "concerns" quoted here seem a little far fetched. Furthermore, vigilantes present as much danger to law enforcement as to their prey, so I don't believe the Border Patrol or sheriff's offices will continue the program if there's significant evidence of more people hunting illegals.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the part about vigilantism being a non-issue, but as for the location of the cameras, it should be easy enough to locate them (roughly) using astronomical markers on the images they record, then get better accuracy by overlaying a view from Google Earth and matching landmarks. If someone wanted to, they could find the cameras pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
Others have pointed this out by why not pile on a little. Are you really seriously saying that it isn't possible to find when you can see what it's pointed at?
Why, exactly, do you believe that?
These cameras are in fixed locations and will be showing pretty much the same thing for years to come. Even without active intervention involving guys with flags wandering along
Re: (Score:2)
The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
I read these posts wondering if the geek has the least idea of what the Mexican border looks like. Its length. Its terrain. If the cameras are set properly there will be no point of reference.
other uses? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to provide more effective protection than the police currently provide for witnesses, abused women, and others under threat. All too often even when such people get some protection it takes the form of a patrol car driving by now and then or officers posted outside the front door, often for limited hours and not for very many days. Providing really effective protection takes a lot of manpower that is hard for police to provide. And then there are cases where te police are unsympathetic or consider that there isn't enough hard evidence of a threat. If cameras could be set up to monitor building and in some case apartment entrances and exits and streamed to sites where volunteers would monitor them, that could provide a large increase in the manpower available.
Re:other uses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good idea. Posting video feeds from in and around the buildings where witnesses and others in need of protection live sounds like a great idea.
Law enforcement: "Please watch these cameras and let us know if you see something suspicious."
Mafia: "$5000 for the first person who recognizes the building in this picture."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you misunderstand my suggestion. I'm not suggesting this for the small number of cases where the location of the threatened person is secret. Clearly you don't want to do this if the witness is being kept in a safe house or other secret location. However, most witnesses, even those who are at risk, are not housed in safe houses. It is way too expensive to do this other than for very important witnesses or those who are under a very serious threat. Similarly, women at risk from abusive ex-partners o
Re: (Score:2)
True, but I'm not sure a guaranteed single-and-vulnerable woman would want her location and status broadcast to the world any more than a witness protection witness would want the world knowing where he or she was holed up.
The jealous husband/boyfriend might be able to think of a few interesting uses for the video feeds too. Nothing like video stalking your ex without having to break in and install the video surveillance yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
That is easily solved by semi-randomizing the feed volunteers view. Make sure it is another city (based on requester ID) and otherwise randomize. Every 15 mins, switch feed. And of course don't set the cameras up to show building numbers or street numbers.
It might be possible to trace a feed, but it would take a lot of effort and there is no guarantee which feed you are tracing.
It would be pretty useless for tracking specific people.
Re: (Score:2)
Never underestimate the cleverness of motivated people and the Internet.
You'd be releasing private information to the public. Sure, it might seem like you've figured out all the angles, but what if you miss one?
It's not even clear what the benefit would be. Okay, you see someone come into the building you're watching. Do they live there? Okay, they're sufficiently suspicious. Now what? Press the call the cops button? In the ten minutes it takes them to get there, the guy, who knows he's being watched
Re: (Score:2)
Pipe stills into Amazons Mechanical Turk service, take the most common locational guesses and go verify it in person. Cheap n' easy.
Hidden? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a fairly straightforward way to locate the cameras if you have a bit more time than me. Using the time of the sunrise and sunset (and the length of the day), you should be able to get a decent fix on the location (people use the same technique on whales and sea turtles.)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm good point. I suppose a couple of seconds of random delay would introduce enough noise into the position to make the camera hard to spot.
A general area to search (Score:2)
Using sunrise/sunset isn't meant to give a precise location, only a general area to search.
Like, say, the border of Mexico?
I don't think between the area not being that wide and slight variations of terrain you are going to have much luck with that sun/shadow thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think between the area not being that wide and slight variations of terrain you are going to have much luck with that sun/shadow thing.
Most of the cameras have some sky in the shot. Light curves are easy to take, which will give you a very good idea of camera longitude. Being on the US/Mexican border gives you the latitude.
You might have to take data over a few days to narrow it down to a mile or so, but beyond that, who cares? Avoid those 21 miles of the border and you're good to go.
These things
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution: delay the feeds by the approprite amount of time so that the sun rises on all cameras at the same moment. Though I suppose this wouldn't protect against using solar eclipses to determine the time delays, heh.
It's a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the term is "crowdsourcing", or in this case, "sponsored crowdsourcing", where the citizens want their border protected, and there is not enough manpower or money for the government to do it.
However, I doubt it will catch on much, unless there is incentive/award to successfully identify illegal crossing that requires a high 'hit ratio' or low rate of false reports to claim a reward.
It is not vigilantism for citizens to assist law enforcement in enforcing the laws of the country. It is respo
21 cameras are not enough (Score:2, Insightful)
The border is massive, and 21 cameras cannot possibly cover a significant portion.
It's good as a pilot project, but the border is thousands of miles long.
Would-be illegal immigrants will eventually get word about regarding which reasons are "safest" or that they're most likely to succeed at in crossing.
Probably forested most geographically hostile areas, where cameras can't easily be placed, are going to be more favored crossing points.
The low number of border agents places them at significant ad
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if the cameras connect wirelessly the signals will be easily detectable. If there are wires, the wires will have to run for dozens of kilometers, and they will get found and cut by illegal immigrants (or natural events like some tree deciding to grow a root somewhere).
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Use solar power and a small satellite uplink dish. You could potentially do that in a way that is concealed from the ground, is pretty hard to detect, and only has wires between the location of the camera and the location of the uplink gear. Oh, and if those wires get cut, you could immediately dispatch someone to investigate, repair, and apprehend.
Re: (Score:2)
"Probably forested most geographically hostile areas, where cameras can't easily be placed, are going to be more favored crossing points. "
Forested? Are there any forested areas on the border? I was under the impression the entire region was a desert without much vegetation beyond sage brush.
What we need now (Score:2, Troll)
What we need now is an additional camera every, oh, quarter mile. Figure $250 per camera installation (small ARM network board, camera, connectivity). That'd be a good start.
Then put autocanons on them designed to only shoot south.
There is an easier way... (Score:2, Funny)
Why use autocannons? Just link the cameras and guns to an online sniper game and let the crowd do it!
Heck, you could probably charge $1 per shot and make money!
The East Germans had something like that. (Score:2)
Shaped-charge high explosives filled with shrapnel designed to turn anyone climbing over their fence into a colander.
Mind you, the East German security people were total douchebags. Presumably that is what you want the US Border Patrol to become also. Or perhaps you think they already are.
The East Germans took them down after a while (well before the Wall came down). Even they realized how scummy it was.
Re: (Score:2)
$250? Try $25,000 (and this isn't a jab at government inefficiency)
Sure, a small ARM board and low-resolution camera would probably cost about $250. However, you'd need to make it able to withstand a harsh outdoor environment, and also consider things such as visibility in the rain and at night (otherwise, people would just wait until these times to cross). Also make sure your field of view is sufficient to legibly capture an eighth of a mile in both directions.
Next, factor in power and connectivity at a
Re: (Score:2)
I know. I was going for intentional understatement.
But, I do think $25k/camera is a bit high. Maybe for the camera-turret system. :)
For optics, you could get what you need for under $450. That would be a webcam with a wide-angle lense, a gen1 nightvision monoscope (IR and the like would be useless in the desert), and a wide-angle lens enclosure for them both (to reduce any moving parts - doesn't matter if everyone looks fat, as long as you get more area).
Tying it all together might be a little more difficul
And the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
After being on hold for 30 minutes: "Officer, i saw a crossing, 50 miles from any human post.. "
By the time they mobilize, all the cameras will do is allow us to count how many crossed over, for the census.
cost effectiveness of the war on drugs in general? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA says: "the administrators of the site maintain the primary goal of the initiative is to tackle crime, not illegal immigration." In other words, this is about the war on drugs. At a cost of about 4 million dollars, 21 arrests have been made; "Critics say this does not represent value for money."
This is a fascinating proposition. Let's figure out the value-per-dollar supplied by the war on drugs in general, and see if it's better than the value-per-dollar supplied by this program.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs. (The term was first used by Nixon in 1969.) I don't think it will come as a surprise that it's been a failure [wikipedia.org].
What about the "per-dollar" part? Well, I don't know about your state, but mine (California) spends more on prisons than it spends on education, and the vast majority of prison spending arises from drug prohibition. First of all, you have all the people in prison for buying, selling, or using drugs. Then you have all the crime directly associated with the illegal drug trade; just as the stereotypical Chicago gangster of the 1930's wouldn't have existed without Prohibition, gangs today wouldn't exist without drug prohibition. And then you have all the crime that indirectly arises from drug prohibition. Drug prohibition makes drugs expensive, so people commit crimes to support their habits. So we have all the costs of incarceration, the social costs suffered by the victims of violent crime, etc. It's a lot of money.
So I would estimate that the value-per-dollar of the war on drugs over the last 40 years equals x/y, where x is a number so small that it's controversial whether it's positive or negative, and y is huge.
Epic flood of false positives... (Score:2)
If the Department of Vaterland Zecurity thinks for one second that people won't find a way of monkeywrenching this, they're even more deluded than they seem.
Controversial ? (Score:2)
As much as I am against American immigration policy, I fail to see why these webcams are more controversial than just a webcam set up looking over New York downtown ?
On another topic - how many years until mexicans overtake us in population in america ?
Redundant (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.slashdot.org/story/06/06/02/1250244/Texas-to-Provide-Online-Bordercams?art_pos=4 [slashdot.org]
Dr_Barnowl writes
"The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. [bbc.co.uk] The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers."
From the article:
"'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants "
Hey, it's working for Britain, right?
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we have bigger problems than illegal immigration and trying to patrol the border, which is an arguably worthwhile endeavor, is really not the most effective technique at our disposal. It would help, for starters, if the country they were fleeing wasn't such a cesspool of corruption, crime and poverty. Notice that we don't have nearly as much trouble with Canadians fleeing their country. I can hardly blame those Mexican immigrants for wanting to get the heck out of there.
Second it would probably be more effective if we made it easier for them to come here LEGALLY. Then they could work and live here, with less fear of deportation, and contributing more openly to the society they want so badly to join.
It's a complicated problem, which is why nobody has really managed to solve it. Just ask a Cherokee. If you can find one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think we have bigger problems than illegal immigration and trying to patrol the border, which is an arguably worthwhile endeavor, is really not the most effective technique at our disposal. It would help, for starters, if the country they were fleeing wasn't such a cesspool of corruption, crime and poverty. Notice that we don't have nearly as much trouble with Canadians fleeing their country. I can hardly blame those Mexican immigrants for wanting to get the heck out of there.
Exactly! All this talk of "criminals" and "drugs", calling large swaths of people "illegals"...its a terrible thing! They are still human beings you know...
This idea of having people watching computer screens for desperate people trying to make a new life in another country, its revolting to me. I also feel sorry for those who have grown up on the other side to s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll comment under the assumption that you haven't thought this out to its many possible consequences. Maybe you could make a case for some intrinsic right of travel, but there are other natural rights (not to mention socially-accepted rights and responsibilities) that would supersede such a right.
Here is an extreme example: If Israel opened their borders, there wouldn't be an Israel, just a bunch of craters.
Here's another: If the US opened their borders (ports, specifically), you wouldn't be able to trust
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the absence of law you would see a whole other kind of tyrant. It would be the tyranny of the strong and cruel where the bullies would rise up and take what they wanted without consequences. For evidence of that just look to some of the par
Re: (Score:2)
"That way other workers could report their employer for hiring cheap illegals."
No luck there. First of all, the actual people involved have protection from liability as a business so the business gets fined and nobody goes to jail. Second, in the US the accused has the right to face the accuser. WHO reported the company will be in the paperwork and will also be a matter of public record.
By the way it is already a crime to hire illegals, and to pay them less than american workers, and it is already a crimina
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you are so concerned about criminal activity "crossing the border", why not do what that lovely man in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City suggested for florida, build a moat!
Yeah as an Aussie it has long been my belief that you shouldn't be able to be a country unless you have water all the way around. Of course the Panama Canal is sort of a moat, and it is part of the USA.
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?
Put that way its not really a bad thing but spare a thought for the great number of people from poor countries who do the right thing by applying through channels, filling out the forms and working hard to qualify. Letting asylum seekers through does two bad things IMHO:
I 1997 I visited friends in the US. They had an apartment in Manhattan and during the day I made use of the laundry in their building. The demographics in the laundry and the attached playground were totally different from elsewhere generally in the building. The clothes were being washed and the children were being cared for by middle aged women from central America. It was actually a lot like Malaysia (my wife's native country), where many families have Indonesian servants.
If you want to retain your identity, migration has to be slow. I am sure that India or Sri Lanka could dump enough people on NZ in one year to create a new majority. I doubt that even the past immigrants from those countries want that to happen. And it is a sad fact I think that population pressure has to be used to reduce population growth. Its sad because starvation is implied in that equation.
Re: (Score:2)
"""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"" [wikipedia.org]
"
That is next to Ellis Island where legal immigrants could register when they came into the country. There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally.
Trust me as someone who has researched the options - US is actually one of the hardest countries to immigrate to, at least in First World. If you want to see what "really isn't much barrier" is like, look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Ireland. Even then, a degree is essentially a must (sometimes, you can get away without it, but you need lots and lots of work experience in a field that's on priority lists).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?'
If it were only a matter of rich vs poor then we could have legal crossing day every month and just let them enter legally.
There are quotas on immigration for other reasons. One very important reason is prevent mass immigration from a single place and to spread it around. This prevents people who are loyal to another nation and culture from effectively conquering by immigration. This is a v
Re: (Score:2)
Luxemburg. (Score:2)
Border security? Nada. Why bother? They don't behave in such a way as to piss anybody off.
Re: (Score:2)
Pissing people off is almost the least of it. That calls for an army, not a border crossing guard.
There's an additional discussion around how much sovereignty is given up in joining the EU, and the Union itself certainly has border control. Perhaps Luxembourg doesn't need it for the same reason that Maryland doesn't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is this crap (Score:5, Informative)
There is an option for citizens who want to be good guys and snitch on companies who employ illegals and are thus tax cheats.
You can turn in illegals, punish employers who exploit both them and Americans who need jobs, and make a profit.
http://www.taxwhistleblowers.org/main/page.php?page_id=2 [taxwhistleblowers.org]
"Amount of Form 211 Reward
Rewards range from 1% to 15% of amounts collected (including taxes, fines, and penalties, but not interest) up to a maximum of $10 million."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It means that closing borders is a waste of time and energy. It's a pointless drain on the economy to waste tax dollars on a pipe dream. Not to mention the privacy concerns of erecting sophisticated surveillance equipment wily-nily.
Patrolling the Mexican-American border is about as effective as the war on drugs. I thought the economic and social drain of the Berlin Wall was well known.
The point is:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I was with you on the first sentence. But there's a problem with the Berlin Wall analogy: the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, whereas the US border controls are designed to keep people out.