Europe is Using Smartphone Data as a Weapon To Deport Refugees (wired.co.uk) 352
Governments are using migrants' smartphones to deport them. From a report: Across the continent, migrants are being confronted by a booming mobile forensics industry that specialises in extracting a smartphone's messages, location history, and even WhatsApp data. That information can potentially be turned against the phone owners themselves. In 2017 both Germany and Denmark expanded laws that enabled immigration officials to extract data from asylum seekers' phones. Similar legislation has been proposed in Belgium and Austria, while the UK and Norway have been searching asylum seekers' devices for years.
Following right-wing gains across the EU, beleaguered governments are scrambling to bring immigration numbers down. Tackling fraudulent asylum applications seems like an easy way to do that. As European leaders met in Brussels last week to thrash out a new, tougher framework to manage migration -- which nevertheless seems insufficient to placate Angela Merkel's critics in Germany -- immigration agencies across Europe are showing new enthusiasm for laws and software that enable phone data to be used in deportation cases. Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications.
Following right-wing gains across the EU, beleaguered governments are scrambling to bring immigration numbers down. Tackling fraudulent asylum applications seems like an easy way to do that. As European leaders met in Brussels last week to thrash out a new, tougher framework to manage migration -- which nevertheless seems insufficient to placate Angela Merkel's critics in Germany -- immigration agencies across Europe are showing new enthusiasm for laws and software that enable phone data to be used in deportation cases. Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications.
Counterpoint. (Score:5, Interesting)
Europe is using smartphone data as a tool to help repatriate lost runaways.
Re:Counterpoint. (Score:5, Interesting)
Europe is using smartphone data as a tool to help repatriate lost runaways.
Precisely. We want to see families reunited. We know that ripping children from their mothers cannot be tolerated, therefore we should do the best we can to send children back to their mothers. Or at least returned to their motherland and their extended family.
Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants (Score:5, Informative)
Who writes this stuff? There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant. To conflate it all is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there are over 140 countries who are obligated by law to allow entry for certain reasons. For example; The states that signed the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are strict criteria for claiming refugee status. Otherwise why would anyone wait through the long legal immigration process if all they had to do was just show up and say the magic word "asylum!"
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, you can be all or some of them at the same time. In Europe illegal immigrants can apply for asylum and often do lie in order to get migrant benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
To conflate it all is disingenuous.
I don't see anything being conflated at all.
The article says Europe will be using smartphone searches to vet and possibly deport refugees. The claim that some refugees lie on their asylum applications is a pretty good justification for the searches.
It shouldn't matter if someone is a refugee, migrant, permanent immigrant, or the holder of some obscure visa---if you lie to the host state, you should be kicked out.
I see some potential for confusion because European media uses "migrants" where US media would n
Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants (Score:4, Informative)
To conflate it all is disingenuous.
I don't see anything being conflated at all.
Under U.S. law, anyway, "asylee" is not synonymous with "refugee;" it's a subset of refugee, with different legal procedures and consequences. See https://www.uscis.gov/humanita... [uscis.gov] , http://www.alllaw.com/articles... [alllaw.com] , https://www.dhs.gov/immigratio... [dhs.gov] , https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu] , and--if you want the statute-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu] .
Re: (Score:3)
"To conflate it all is disingenuous."
That is by design.
Re: (Score:3)
"Some people lying about their refugee status" would be correct. Because this is what happens.
It is interesting, though, that it's apparently mostly young men that manage to escape war areas. Women and kids seem to like it there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants (Score:4, Insightful)
Some genuine refugees lie, for a whole variety of reasons. They are still refugees and the system has to recognise that.
As opposed to NOT-genuine refugees? What separates the two? If someone who claims to be a refugee and is lying in order to pull off that fraud, that doesn't make them a refugee, it makes them a liar pretending to be one to scam the system. Tools that help to differentiate the scammers from the real thing are essential, since untold thousands of people continually attempt that scam.
Re: (Score:2)
A lie is a lie, whether you're a legitimate refugee or not. All people, not only refugees, have personal responsibility for their own actions, and lying on your application could most certainly be a valid cause for deportation.
The data from Norway and Sweden indicate that at least 50% of "underage" refugees lie about their age (Norway estimate 50%+ with their more rigorous testing methods, Sweden estimates 66%+ by post-acceptance checks). Should lying about your age not be a valid reason for deportations?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that zero tolerance and "not fair"? Too friggin' bad, it's incumbent upon the "refugee" to satisfy the curiosity and belay the suspicions of the "host". The host is in no way encumbered with the requirement to ignore deception.
Re:Refugees, asylum seekers, migrants (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about lying about your name or the town you came from
"I am from Berne, and my name is Mr. Bimler ... this is my friend Mr. Hilter and he most recently lived in Vienna.
Lying about your name prevents validation of your status in the country you are fleeing, including criminal and political. By lying about your name you are deliberately trying to bypass the legal process of asylum, and should be deported. If you are going to lie to get into the country, what other laws are you going to break once you are here?
Remember that refugees are fleeing something, and they don't know the system
Are you seriously trying to claim that they don't know they are lying ("don't know the system")? Or that they don't trust the place they are trying to gain entry to? Then why would they flee to that country if they don't trust that country? That's leaping from the frying pan into the fire, isn't it?
Go somewhere that lying is acceptable and that you trust. Bye.
A zero tolerance policy is unfair.
It is quite fair to the people who already live here, and to those who obey the laws to try to gain entry. It is certainly fair to those who are refused asylum for cause when they tell the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you have genuine reason to fear you might be harmed or killed, or that if word of your leaving gets out your family left back home might be targeted...
How is obeying the rules fair when the rules are gonna get you killed? And why assume the rules are reasonable or fair anyway, when they are clearly designed not to be?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you have genuine reason to fear you might be harmed or killed
Then go to a different country.
or that if word of your leaving gets out your family left back home might be targeted..
Because nobody would notice that you aren't there anymore, right?
How is obeying the rules fair when the rules are gonna get you killed?
You leap from "maybe" to a definite statement of fact.
And why assume the rules are reasonable or fair anyway, when they are clearly designed not to be?
And now you assume that which you need to prove. I don't assume the laws are fair, I look at the laws and make an informed judgement. If you think that telling the immigration officials at the country where you seek asylum will result in your death, you need to go somewhere else. If you think that lying and committing a crime to be able to enter a country wh
Re: (Score:2)
What actually matters here? Getting a 100% rejection rate on people who lied or made any kind of mistaken statement, or figuring out who is a security risk but erring on the side of humanity otherwise?
By the way, taking a hard line in public is virtue signalling, as is complaining about virtue signalling.
Re: (Score:2)
By definition these folks don't have any papers or documentation (i.e. undocumented).
That is not true. It is not "by definition". They may not have any documents on their person, but it is quite possible that they do.
Further, their status as asylum seekers doesn't mean the source country has no documentation on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's not an arbitrary distinction, you just don't want it acknowledged.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but they're also people. People with hopes, dreams, lives, and the same love of life you and I have. People with human rights.
To draw arbitrary distinctions in an attempt to dehumanize is also disingenuous.
I would bet you can distinguish between an invited guest and a squatter in your home without delving into nonsense arguments. You have a right to decide who can enter and remain in your home and for how long.
Migrants (Score:2)
The proper word is "migrants", not refugees.
Somewhat misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Separating actual refugees from immigrants with other motivations is vitally important, to make sure we can financially, politically and socially afford to take in as many actual refugees as needed. It's not unreasonable to ask applicants to provide proof to support their claim, and that includes submitting mobile phone data. As long as it is treated as the highly sensitive data that it is, with only relevant portions being retained and only for as long as necessary.
Telescreens (Score:2)
Because it's a hyper competitive job market (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ask yourself why would anyone willingly consume and pay for poisons like cigarettes or alcohol? Consume and pay for unhealthy food, sit in front of that that TV, spent hours a day on the internet on social media looking at pictures and videos of cute animals, funny pictures and videos, and so forth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same thing that needs to happen in the U.S. And it all starts with being able to control the border, which means a wall.
I'm a big believer in allowing everybody who isn't a criminal or a terrorist to enter the U.S.. Quotas were an abomination imposed on us by Progressive to keep Eastern Europeans, Jews and anyone not white out of the U.S. It's time to get rid of them.
At the same time reasonable requirements, such as those listed by that's-so-kash need to enacted as part of the package. We want i
Re: (Score:3)
I also think that the language issue takes care of itself after the first generation. You're
egad! (Score:2)
Not for long they will. (Score:2)
This collides head on with the freshly implemented EU GDPR and will have Amnesty International legal Teams all over it in 5 minutes or so.
Unless there's been a crime and police is allowed to investigate. Lying about your status or collection welfare at multiple points is fraud and a crime. Then they can search your ass.
Wrong (Score:2)
They are using it to deport migrants lying about being refugees.
And I am sure that if you life is on the line, looking at your smart phone can't be a problem.
How about they NOT BREAK THE LAW!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
So we have illegal migrants complaining that they have their phones searched for evidence of breaking immigration laws. This is not how people take a case to court, even in the court of public opinion.
Here's an example for you, admittedly about a different law. I recall a few years ago reading about people being shot in Chicago a week apart with similar circumstances. The person shot was a known criminal that had broken into a home, the homeowner that shot the criminal had done so with an unregistered fi
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you go to school, because they're clearly teaching a very distorted view of history.
I mean, lets consider countries the British strongly influenced. Nope, not seeing refugees from Antigua, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, China, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Grenadines, Guyana, India, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Cyprus
EU "Privacy" (Score:2)
Just another reminder that the EU's supposedly robust privacy protections target (successful American) corporations while allowing government snooping to proceed apace.
A soldier in the UK working immigration said... (Score:4, Interesting)
They do (Score:2)
All sorts of technology is used to select the fake refugees from the real ones.
So if you claim you come from Neverwereistan, your phone data should not indicate that you really come from Somewherelsistan.
Also, they really compare the photo on the passport with your face, so be sure they match as well.
Bring the numbers down? (Score:3)
Re:some? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than use it on law abiding citizens,let's use it to more readily track the illegal immigrants in the US (border hoppers and VISA overstays) and use this to more readily track them down.
This would go a long way of circumventing the sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.
I don't have a problem with people coming and migrating to the US to integrate and become US citizens, but if you are coming to the country, at least sign the fucking GUEST BOOK on the way in, and do things legally.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Countries should only admit good-looking immigrants.
They should be really good-looking too, as in "raise the national average" good-looking. For example, the certain parts of the US and Scandinavia would halt all immigration, because the people are gorgeous and handsome. Europe would severely reduce immigration, except for England, whose gene pool needs much improvement after centuries of inbreeding to preserve so-called "nobility".
Central & subsaharan Africa would accept everyone except people with de
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this?! A country for ants?!
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler; probably *not* someone who's posting AC nonsense to Slashdot because they're in hiding from hordes of supermodels after them for their aesthetically perfect body and have nothing better to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.
Sanctuary cities do obey the law, and have no legal obligation to cooperate.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Which law?
This law [wikipedia.org].
Their own attempt to circumvent Federal law?
Bullshit. Which law?
Re:some? (Score:5, Insightful)
The federal government is the one who decides who can and cannot enter the country, and the Executive branch is tasked with securing the border and enforcing immigration laws.
States may not have to specifically aid the feds for certain things, but they cannot actively interfere with their operations. Doing so makes them active participants in crime. And yes, entering the country illegally is a crime. As is aiding and abetting such criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Which law?
Obstruction [wikipedia.org] of justice:
"Obstruction charges may also be laid in unique situations such as refusal to aid a police officer [wikipedia.org], escape through voluntary action of an officer and refusing to assist prison officers in arresting escaped convicts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] :
"[Section] 507. Officers to make character known; assistance for officers[3]
(a) Every customs officer shall-- (1) upon being questioned at the time of executing any of the powers conferred upon him, make known his character as an officer
Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
No, big difference between finding and removing immigration criminals and citizens.
Countries have borders and immigration laws. There is no problem using whatever means to locate immigration criminals.
Re:Part of the Plan for a Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there are rights for when they are hunted, captured, detained and deported. All that is legal under the law. That has never changed.
There are laws for refugees. There are laws for immigration.
You do not advocate the rule of law. That is wrong.
About that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Yeah, right. About that...
It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.
In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants [wikipedia.org] per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.
Non-citizens can apparently vote, and there's a bi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)
Yes, that is insane.
We are now seeing Democrats advocating for allowing people in prison to vote. I don't mean allowing people that were once in prison and now out free, I'm talking about people in prison having a polling booth available to them inside the prison walls. That's insane. I could be convinced of allowing convicted felons being allowed to vote after being released and serving out any probation. Letting people that immigrated illegally to get a vote, get a license to drive, get a job, send th
Re:About that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I will agree that prisoners have the right to vote if you agree that prisoners have the right carry weapons.
I'm fine with felons released from prison being allowed to vote, just as I am fine with them being allowed to carry weapons. Prison is punishment for antisocial behavior, as well as confinement to prevent them from doing further harm to polite society. By putting people in prison we've determined in a court of law that this person has violated the social contract. With rights comes responsibilities
Re:About that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.
As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.
There was a time that I would have agreed with you that "a lot" of people are in prison for non-violent drug charges. Assuming I agree with that premise I still see a problem. These people in prison had to know the drugs they possessed were illegal, and by possessing them they run the risk of imprisonment if caught. Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them. If they broke the law as a means of civil disobedience then this o
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, so you're too damn sheltered/not paranoid enough to have a reasonable adult conversation.
And while Florida has a lot of problems and weirdness, I suspect that a campaign promise of "SETTING MURDERERS FREE" is going t
Re: (Score:3)
"So don't break the law if you don't want to go to prison and lose your ability to vote."
Most of the people going to prison for drug offenses are short on opportunity. They don't see another choice. The same system designed to keep a handful of racially and economically privileged men in power is designed to keep them in poverty. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of that system commit crimes that harm the masses with both regularity and impunity. They do not follow the law, but they are not punished. This is not
Re: (Score:3)
Re:About that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Drugs generally aren't worth punishment, and that's what kind of non-violent offender fills our prisons. As for the violence, I'm talking about the first time they were put in a cage being unjust. The later violence is often hard to avoid, due to the fact that our prisons don't rehabilitate, and the first offense will lead to difficulty finding employment, which leads to more drugs and often, to violent crime. Judging those people doesn't really work with standard moral views, because they are caught up by forces much larger than them. The real problem is systemic, and as people who understand first-hand how the system is broken, they deserve to have their input heard on fixing it.
Universal suffrage should be considered the norm, and the necessity for excluding a group from said suffrage needs a strong rationale. So long as the majority of the population thinks crime is bad, and a minority of the population is in prison, we don't really risk actual criminals getting extreme leniency. What we do see is amnesty for bullshit crimes, which Obama did quite a bit of, and states are starting to do as well. Blindseer is obsessing over a completely contrived hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Australia, voting is compulsory for citizens aged 18+, otherwise eligible prisoners serving a full-time term of less than 3 years can still vote in federal elections (it's a little unclear on whether you MUST vote, like those on the outside). Serving more than 3 years
you are ineligible. Rules for state and local level elections vary.
https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Prisoners.htm
Re:About that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disenfranchisement of felons is a downhill slope. You punish people unfairly, then take away the only right they might use to help change the system so it doesn't happen to others. We tell prospective citizens that the right to vote is the most important right they have (in fact it is the "correct" answer to a question on the citizenship test) and then we go on to deprive even people who were born here of that right.
Re:About that... (Score:5, Informative)
Found the political bullshitter with an agenda!
Non-citizens can apparently vote
Not really. They cannot vote in federal elections at all per 18 USC 611. (I'd link it at uscode.house.gov, but Slashdot apparently doesn't like the URL. I trust you can find it.)
Since you mentioned CA in particular, I'll note that they can't vote there at all. Only US citizens can vote in CA, according the California Secretary of State. [ca.gov]
As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote. Certainly everywhere I've lived.
It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants, but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.
Re:About that... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote.
But can do nothing to verify that the person casting that ballot is a US citizen. Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits.
Imagine a law that says only people older than 20 can drink alcohol, and then not allowing the bars to check IDs to make sure all the people they serve are at least 21. Would you still argue that there is any law against 18 year olds drinking? Any USEFUL law?
It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants,
Nothing here shows any fear of immigrants. It shows a disdain for criminals, however. Not every immigrant is a criminal.
but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.
Nor it is OK to ignore that prohibiting the enforcement of laws effectively eliminates those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a law that says only people older than 20 can drink alcohol, and then not allowing the bars to check IDs to make sure all the people they serve are at least 21. Would you still argue that there is any law against 18 year olds drinking? Any USEFUL law?
When people oppose simple logic laws like these, I know they only care about being in opposition. They cry in hysterics that the "man" is trying to suppress people of color from voting as though the laws do not apply to everyone. Democrats had a total shitfit when the Ohio law to remove old data from voter rolls was approved by the Supreme Court. To be removed, you had to fail to vote for at least four successive years worth of elections and ignore notice from the Board of Elections. And if they are pur
Re:About that... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."
Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.
Re:About that... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."
Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.
ID requirements are challenged no matter what the government does. Bringing ID vans to neighborhoods and making it free makes no difference. It will be challenged by testifying that there is at least one person who just can't possibly manage to do it no matter how easy it is. I bet they would manage to make it if you were giving away free cell phones. They would manage if you needed an ID to claim your free cell phone.
I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
But can do nothing to verify that the person casting that ballot is a US citizen. Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits.
Here's what's racist about this, assuming minorities are too poor, ignorant, or lazy to register to vote and get an ID like everyone else.
That said I do have some objection to requiring an ID to vote.
We should be able to vote based on something like a sworn testimony of the identity of the person casting the vote much like we have done for ages with other legal documents like birth certificates, marriage licenses, licenses to drive, and so forth. Those that sign as witness to a ballot cast under false pret
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
make jobs hard to get
Immigrants take jobs, and then spend their wages on goods and services that create new jobs. The preponderance of the evidence is that they create more jobs than they take.
and puts a burden on the infrastructure.
They also pay taxes to build new infrastructure.
Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.
We used to have unrestricted immigration. The economy expanded rapidly, and living standards soared.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Illegal immigrants do not pay federal taxes. A Social Security number is required for that. Identity theft is a felony, which many of them commit. Not to pay taxes mind you, but to get jobs that the true owner of that SSN# is on the hook for the unpaid taxes on.
Once again you conflate legal and illegal immigrants on purpose to somehow brand those opposed to illegal immigration as racists or nazis or whatever. People have woken up to that,
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the employer, who has that SSN, is not withholding taxes. Not true in all cases. I cannot speak to what percentage of cases, but it sounds like you can, so I look forward to seeing your sources.
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never had a job. The employee fills out a W4 form when hired that specifies how much is withheld.
Re: (Score:2)
yep. Which includes an SSN. And claiming that nothing needs to be withheld is looked at askance by the payroll department. I did that for a few months because I'd been overwithheld for the first 6 months of the year, and they were quite firm about stopping that once it had balanced out.
Re: (Score:2)
So much for the theory.
But in fact, immigrants in Europe have to send the money back home to pay back the debt they have, from taking loans from family and friends to get to Europe in the first place. Never wondered how "penniless" refugees somehow manage to pay traffickers multiple thousand dollars to get smuggled into the EU?
That money drain is actually starting to get pretty noticeable.
Re: (Score:3)
Your post is full of inaccuracies, and therefore much of your conclusions are flawed.
Canada had 35 million people in the last census, and admits 260,000 legal immigrant annually. That is 0.74% of the population. The USA has 325 million now, and the 1.1 million you quoted would be 0.33%. As you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Because it was understood as common f'ing sense that non-citizens not be counted toward representation in government. They'd just finished fighting a war for independence, do you really believe they intended to give British or any other non-citizen who came after a say in that government?
Re: (Score:3)
Because it was understood as common f'ing sense that non-citizens not be counted toward representation in government.
WRONG.
Article 1 of the US Constitution states,
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The "other Persons" being slaves, who were definitely *not* considered citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it racist when no race was mentioned anywhere? Do you believe illegal immigrants are a race of themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly can't tell sarcasm any more on this site. They Left has jumped the shark that badly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Merkel is the one who oversaw in introduction of really strong privacy laws and tried to find a workable, humane solution to the migrant crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama pulled out of war theaters? I'm sure the people of Syria and Libya will be thrilled to hear that!
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if there was a plan. I mean besides 'Merkel is forever' one.
The fact is however that this was all predictable. But first things first: borders were open before you just had to show a pass, sometimes visa and some such. This is not a closed border. I lived under closed border regime together with Merkel so I can tell. The open border that she and her minions are blathering about is no border - no checks allowed. This goes as far as not to check age of people claiming to be minors - something that in
Re: It's got nothing to do with the police state (Score:2)
Bollocks. A lot of the places in the world have always been completely broken.
Everywhere was completely broken at some time (Score:2)
Iran was modernizing until we replaced their democratically elected government with one we approved of in
Re: (Score:2)
Last time Sweden destroyed a country was IIRC somewhere in the 1800s. And as far as I remember it was not Syria.
Re: (Score:2)
Why???
I mean, if these are foreign people inside the US illegally, then this sounds like one of the most legitimate uses of such tech by the NSA and ICE.
If you didn't sign the guest book on the way in, we are obligated to find you and throw your ass back out of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if they are economic migrants, or asylum seekers. Giving hostile foreign cultures who fundamentally can not assimilate and/or are genetic dead ends a permanent large representation in your nation is insane. Help them, don't make them fucking citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society.
No they don't. Many of them just want free benefits.
Re: (Score:3)
WHAT benefits [rationalwiki.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
it's the ones escaping violence. The actual refugees. The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society. The refugees are forced out by violence. They don't want to be in your country, they want to go home. So they don't integrate.
The people of Southern Europe are no longer indulging this sort of hair splitting. They can't afford to any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Integration is failed assimilation, it's not something praiseworthy.
Have you listened to Erdogan lately? The Turks came to Europe as economic migrants (we were told they would be temporary, but it didn't work out like that). Now Erdogan tells them, integrate but don't assimilate. The Turks here respond by waving Turkish flags and voting for him ... because of course they have dual citizenship. Cheering their dictator and booing any national politician who goes against him.
Turks, a perfectly integrated third
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those useless sponges that have no problem holding out their hand for EU economy aid and boost but suddenly don't feel like being in an union when it comes to dealing with a common problem?
Re: (Score:3)
A bank account for payments from a gov linked to photo ID linked to biometric data at a federal level? Avoid that nation with good banking laws.
A nation that allows an illegal migrant to register under a list of names and has no active reconciliation between gov payments, the ID and banks? Try that nation that will not investigative fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, big problem. Because that's basically all they have to get information, stay in contact with traffickers and each other and use the internet. A passport is way less useful than a phone.