Malls In California Are Sending License Plate Information To ICE (theweek.com) 677
Presto Vivace shares a report from The Week with the caption, "And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online." From the report: Surveillance systems at more than 46 malls in California are capturing license plate information that is fed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported Tuesday. One company, Irvine Company Retail Properties, operates malls all over the state using a security network called Vigilant Solutions. Vigilant shares data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, and debt collectors -- including ICE, which signed a contract with the security company earlier this year, reports The Verge. "[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk, but invading the privacy of its customers by allowing a third-party to hold onto their data indefinitely," EFF wrote in its report, urging the chain of malls to stop providing information to ICE.
Invading privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're a legal citizen, and then they inevitably also forward your data to a 3rd party consumer data broker to monetize it and track you without your consent, then that is an invasion of privacy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you're a legal citizen, and then they inevitably also forward your data to a 3rd party consumer data broker to monetize it and track you without your consent, then that is an invasion of privacy.
But it isn't *your* data they are sending.
It is the state owned license plate number that isn't yours which they are sending, and the owner of that data has given everyone permission to use their data this way.
Since you included a "when" clause that doesn't resolve to true, even you are agreeing this isn't an invasion of privacy.
There are plenty of other problems with this behavior that are actually problems, lets try to focus on those instead of making up problems that undeniably do not exist.
Re: Invading privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
But it isn't *your* data they are sending.
You're in a rough position and I don't envy you; it must suck to have to defend a defenseless position... the above attempt was desperate and while your "logic" rings hollow, you really shouldn't feel too bad... but if shilling for the Military/Prison Industrial Complex gets old (or you simply develop some self-respect), the good news is that the economy's doing well and you can probably get a job tomorrow delivering pizza... you do have a license, right??
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't selling the fact of a license plate number (that is the state owned information). They are selling the fact that I was at the Southridge Mall in SouthCity from 1 to 4pm on Tuesday, and that I am a regular customer there spending an average of 3 hours a week at the mall over the course of a year.
Does it matter to anyone? I dunno.
But it damn well IS MY INFORMATION.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that a vehicle with a license plate was in a public place during specific times. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy is such a public place.
Until this decade, I damn well did. Until the latter half of this decade, I damn well did. While it was possible to track me and everyone else in that public place sooner, it cost too much, so no one did. Now it's so cheap, any asshole can do it, and every asshole is doing it and that's not ok. I expect to be able to move around in a public place in relative anonymity, without being tracked by tens or hundreds or thousands of random jackoffs like you. And this is completely reasonable.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your current location is your personal information. It's as key as your appearance which IS legally protected I.P.
This is a huge problem in that it can make it easier for a fascist government to control the citizenry.
We should really be subverting and destroying these cameras. We've accepted the possibility of being enslaved in return for security from theft.
Re: Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't put immigrants at risk. Immigrants have green cards, or visas, and are allowed to be here. It puts criminals at risk of having to avail themselves of the justice system, since they broke our immigration laws.
Happy to clear that up for everyone.
Re: Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The voice of sanity in this whole insane debate. It's not about ethnicity, background, race, color, or any of that. Followed the law vs. didn't follow the law. It really is that binary.
Agreed. I will add that the current legal immigration system needs a massive rework and more funding.
Sadly, however, both sides are more interested in keeping illegal immigration as an election issue and front-and-center in public debate. After all, without such perennial wedge issues to keep the electorate's attention, they might start seriously discussing things like term limits and auditing and opening up the Federal Reserve to oversight. Gotta keep the proles stirred up, angry, and thus reduced to functioning on their lizard brain in very predictable and usable ways.
Strat
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The car license plate does not identify the person driving the car, only the registered owner.
People are not being tracked, the cars are.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
and after they finish with the illegals, then you may be in the next group they come for.
I have a friend who is a strong 2nd amendment supporter and gun owner. But he's *finally* realising that the scenario where right wing police show up and confiscate his guns after a major right wing person is shot is a realistic possibility.
Mr. Trump, for example, has already shown he's willing to set aside the rule of law and a love for dictators who don't have 2nd amendment issues.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country
Is it important that they be reported and kicked out, or would you be okay if they just left on their own?
If the latter, then here's a better solution for you: Let's impose heavy fines on any American business who employs an illegal immigrant without validating them via e-verify, and significant jail time for American who does so knowingly. Also, let's offer permanent residency (a green card) to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.
Illegals will instantly become unemployable. Very few green cards will be handed out. With the economic motive for staying in the US removed, the vast majority of illegals will leave. No Orwellian tracking required.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes E-Verify should have been made mandatory a long time ago. Ever since I was a kid and had my first job delivering newspapers I was required to fill out an I-9 form with all my employers. Back then it actually meant something. Today it's a joke - it's actually like an insult to American citizens - given the blatant fraud that occurs and the open support for illegals among politicians whose level of betrayal of American citizens amounts to treason.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't have privacy when you drive around in plain view with a clearly readable personal ID number. The only way to get your privacy back would be to end the requirement to display a license plate number.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between being seen in public and being tracked, which is what's happening here. Law Enforcement is required to get a court order to track you, but this subverts that.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have privacy when you drive around in plain view with a clearly readable personal ID number. The only way to get your privacy back would be to end the requirement to display a license plate number.
You have an expectation of privacy of where you are going or who is using your car (because the plate identifies the car and the owner, not who is driving it.).
Besides, the spirit of the law is that we are not to be under a surveillance system. We are not meant to be under constant mass surveillance unless there is an actual legal reason to do so (say, you are under investigation or something.)
Sadly we have been sliding down that rabbit hole without waking the fuck up. We are deep in it now.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every tire sold in the USA for 10 years has had an embedded RFID.
Once they correlate those to your license number, it's over.
But what do you care? You carry a personal spying device in your pocket.
BTW repo men spend all day driving the streets/parking lots and automatically reading and recording every license number they pass.
I'm considering just collecting a large bag of RFIDs and storing them inside a fender liner. That or a spark gap generator hooked to the ignition.
I understand a ring of bright UV LEDs in a license plate frame will prevent most CCD cameras from getting readable data.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
From a legal perspective, that's not true. Article IV of the Constitution is considered to protect your right to travel freely, and you can't have a right to travel freely if you are being tracked, because there are places that would inherently be embarrassing if you were widely known to have traveled there.
The law has always recognized a difference between merely seeing that someone is in a place and tracking that person for a year to see where he or she goes. The latter, if surveillance is on an ongoing basis, is likely to cross the "reasonable" line and require a warrant (United States v. Jones [justia.com]). A license tracking system appears to be a prima facie attempt to sidestep that warrant requirement, and as such, is legally problematic.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good post and deserves to be up-voted.
I'd like to point out an additional reason why we don't want to live in a world where we are constantly tracked and monitored. Everyone eventually screws up and does something illegal; frequently without even knowing that what we do is technically illegal. They throw something away that is supposed to be disposed of in a specific manner. They don't realize that a certain document needs to be filed. They perform an act that, seems socially normal, but is actually illegal.
No one wants to live in a police state where everyone is a criminal- or has something over their head. I guarantee there is not an adult in this country that has never broken a law (even if unwittingly). When everyone is a criminal- authorities get to pick and choose who to arrest. This is what happened in the Soviet Union where they would make obscure laws just to have an excuse to arrest people.
When everyone is under surveillance, everyone is a watched criminal- and big brother gets to pick which people pay for their crimes and which don't.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a big believer that, without a warrant, cops should be limited to what civilians can do. When the government does it, it's called tracking. When a civilian does it, it's called stalking. Both are illegal. Or at least should be illegal. We should have to deal with harassment from the cops any more than from ex-lovers.
Re: Invading privacy? (Score:3)
The point is, having to hire one or more teenagers to collect & log plates costs a lot more than systematically harvesting the same data via automated means, so it was previously a self-limiting process.
A truckload of 3x5 index cards with license plate numbers & timestamps written on them is *data*.
The same 3x5 index cards, sorted by plate number, is *information*.
Information is more expensive (and more invasive) than mere data. The problem is, the cost of transforming unstructured data into valuabl
Re: (Score:3)
Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?
True. Since a Bond DB5 license plate is not a feasible solution, the solution is to not shop there, encourage others to do the same, and let stores know why you won't shop there. Until, of course, once someone figures out how to hack CA new ePlate to darken it on command.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, some one with ideas about how to stop illegal immigration that are actually sensible. Making e-verify checks mandatory for employers is an infinitely more effective and cheaper means of stopping illegal immigration than that stupid money pit of a wall.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.
Seems like that's a problem caused by greedy, unethical employers. A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee)....Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil
Yes, not at war at all. Just incredibly corrupt and ineffective police, large areas controlled by criminal gangs or drug cartels, frequent assassinations of community figures such as journalists and local politicians, minimal to nonexistent social services, and very limited social mobility. But nope, no war.
Re: (Score:3)
" the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation."
So are the legals (H-1B), can't really blame them, can you? I'll bet, if you lived in a "sh*thole country", you'd try the exact same thing. I know I would.
Now, if you're looking for someone to blame, how about looking closely at those who use the H-1B as a way of importing cheap labor, while coming up with clever ways to claim "there aren't
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation. Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement. Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING. Instead, I continue to write CONgress critters and push for e-verify on all jobs and to cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them). And BTW, those illegals are here because they got shot down for immigration. Wny? Because they have no real skil. So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.
Many of your ideas have merit, but you are way off on that one. I've personally known engineers who have been shot down because of immigration red tape eve though there were highly qualified people, the type of desirable immigrants we claim to want to have.
And with the current climate we are now denying legal entry to refugees who do have a reason to ask for asylum (thus forcing them to come illegally.)
Not all of this is black and white.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The purpose of the license plate is to identify you if there's a problem with your driving or with your parking spot. Tracking everyone is abuse.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm Yes it is invading privacy.
License Plates, and other ID, are meant to verify that you are who you say you are, and that such tools and devices are under the the laws and regulations of the particular state. They are not meant for tracking. If something is up like someone is wanted or a car is reported stolen, then we could put an alert for that ID and if it is found to be reported. However this is tracking everyone to see if they are up to something.
The government doesn't need to know where I am shopping, my political view. Because they are tracking innocent citizens. Because we are all Innocent unless are proven guilty. This warentless tracking is wrong.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not what this is at all. It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook. More like what this is. I don't like it either, but you need a better argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Not what this is at all. It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook. More like what this is. I don't like it either, but you need a better argument.
Good job forgetting to quote the first case which is more analogous to this situation.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook.
Unless "authorities" have a reason to suspect you're committing a crime, the act of following us around with a notebook is police harassment. Note that the standard USED to be Probable Cause (as specified in the Constitution), but our Supreme Court has chipped away at our Constitution and redefined the requirement to be, "Reasonable Suspicion".
I don't understand this trend in America of throwing away our rights to police. Police misconduct is rampant, and too many people are encouraging and enabling it. I can understand not wanting to be the one to personally challenge an edge case when confronting police; but we have a very safe, very effective way to collectively shape our police via collective public opinion. Never before in all of human history has our country given us ordinary citizens the megaphone that is the Internet. We need to use it as a tool to reduce police misconduct, not condone it.
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a basic premise of the rules of evidence that it's invalidated when a cop commits a crime to collect it, but not if a private citizen does it. Thus, even if it is illegal for private citizens to send this information to the police (which it isn't) it's still legal for the police to utilize it.
We need to make it illegal for private entities to send your personal information (including your license plate data) to the police if there is no suspicion that a crime has been committed, and we need to explicitly make it illegal for the police to use it when they violate this requirement. Otherwise, what is happening is almost certainly completely legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I see that they ARE meant for tracking. That's why there is a law that they must be visible. If they were only for identification purposes, there'd be no need to display them.
Wrong, and also wrong. If they were meant for tracking, they would just have a barcode, because that's easier to recognize remotely. They are meant for identification even when the vehicle is in motion on a public roadway, which is why they are required to be displayed in a specific location at all times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Invading privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?
The invasion of privacy is where they send it to ICE without you doing anything wrong. Just because you can see my license plate, doesn't mean you have the right to do what you please with it. Same with the front of my house or what you can see through my windows.
Re: Invading privacy? (Score:4, Funny)
"Those countries aren't "shitholes" you racist!"
"We can't send them back! Their country is a shithole!"
Re: Invading privacy? (Score:3)
Lawyers. Those well-paid consultants are called lawyers. Weird how people would want a lawyer to help them in a court battle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
here is the problem
1 there could be a near real-time record of everywhere you have been (note this will most likely NOT be used in your favor if you are suspected of a crime)
2 errors in the record or deliberate hacking of the record: It would be easy to change the record to say you were at a Fetish Shoppe (or something else that could get you in some sort of trouble) or for somebody to say "oh he parked his car at this location but obviously walked to %suspectlocation%"
3 since when is going to a Mall Probab
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't have anyone wrongly report a debt.
Re: (Score:2)
> And don't have anyone wrongly report a debt.
That will be an interesting achievement if you don't have your own uniquely identifiable primary key for the debt reporting system.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point.
Re: (Score:2)
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "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!
Unless you're Mexican and it's after 2016,
because... well Jesus"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't quote a poem as if it's law. That's much like people insisting "God works in mysterious ways" is part of the bible.
It's not law. It's a national symbol. It's a national expression of what is (or was) important to the country. It is very symbolic of how most people in this country originally came here. The majority of Americans have ancestors who came here- not by visa- not by invite- but by fleeing persecution elsewhere.
But, let's forget history. Let's forget what this country is and was. Instead, let's just concentrate on ourselves and our own discomfort at people that look a little different to us, or speak a la
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is legal. Just have to follow the instructions.
If your first act in a country is breaking its established laws, then you don't deserve to be there. Follow the law, apply for proper Visas, make sure they are valid, and go through proper ports of entry.
Re: Good (Score:4, Informative)
However, it's relatively difficult to legally enter the United States compared to other countries. The laws have been increasingly draconian since 9/11
The US has some of the least stringent immigration laws of any country. Canada has more restrictions on who can legally immigrate than the US for cripe's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing malls are dying (Score:5, Insightful)
East German Surveillance State has come (Score:5, Insightful)
Here to the US.
Re:East German Surveillance State has come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to disappoint, the East Germans were never this good.
Don't worry, all the East Germans have been deported by ICE.
Re: (Score:3)
The East German secret police, the Stasi didn't have all the neat technology that the USA spooks have . . .
. . . otherwise . . . the new Germany States, formerly East German States, would still be East Germany.
Although the roles of the ICE and the Stasi are/were quite a bit different . . . the ICE is concerned about keeping non-citizens out of the country . . . the Stasi was concerned about keeping citizens in the country.
Like I needed another excuse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anybody believe only one real estate corporation is giving away or selling this kind of information? I don't have any legal problems, but I resent being spied on.
So thanks for giving me one more good reason not to visit the US. I'll just spend my money right here in Canada, where at least some pathetic vestiges of actual freedom still survive.
private property is not a public highway (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no need to display your licence number when on private property, so a dash activated hinged flap could be used to hide plate data. They could snap plate data on the way into the mall, but that could involve placing the camera on someone else's private property - who might decline permission.
That said, I do not mind plate scanners being use to find stolen cars or payment defaulted cars (3 months arrears minimum)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no need to display your licence number when on private property, so a dash activated hinged flap could be used to hide plate data.
Obscuring your plate may be illegal, and at best, not displaying a license plate may get your vehicle towed for abandonment. In California it's legal to cover your car, but illegal to obscure your license plate. People get around this by writing their license plate number on their cover. I don't think your cover will be much help if you write the plate number on it...
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like abuse.
Abuse is SCPD's middle name. The first time I was ever pulled over was on Mission St. (hwy 1) in Santa Cruz. I was pulled over for literally nothing, just a suspicious-looking-car check. Couldn't see the lights because on that part of Mission St., there's a ton of streetlights, and my rear window was covered in condensation so the result was that there was light flashing before me even before they got behind me. Then they both approached from the same side of the vehicle at the same time because they were i
So, "immigrants"? (Score:2, Insightful)
My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?
[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk
No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.
I have friends who are illegal immigrants. It's difficult and I don't blame them for being here. But they know the risk that they take by even being here, and they've decided it's worth it for their kids to grow up here instead of the home country (which is
Re: So, "immigrants"? (Score:2)
Right up until that company gets hacked. Then the data on where you go and where you shop is out. Data that doesnt need be collected in the first place for their business.
They may, as privately held properties, have the right to collect the data, for now, but by doing so they incur extra liability if they inadvertently leak that data about their customers. Not necessarily legal liability, but PR liability. Just because someone is legal doesnâ(TM)t mean one should do it, or that it has no consequences.
Re:So, "immigrants"? (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?
Yes. [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... [pewresearch.org]
In 6 years of ICE arrests, that's something like 150k/yr average = 900,000 arrests. 1400 mistakes.
0.15% error rate...that's between 4-5 sigma.
4 sigma is pretty damned good considering the imprecision of the process.
So no, his immigrant wife isn't in any realistic jeopardy.
In your reference, I find it amusing how they keep calling out "the person repeatedly insisted they were an American citizen"...my guess is that ICE agents hear that in something like 75% of the arrests.
Re:So, "immigrants"? (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?
[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk
No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.
Legal immigrants? Hell, these days even American citizens are at risk, and not just from the government. Besides the 92 year old Mexican man legally in the country to visit his children and had a woman beat him up with a brick, there was a woman recently in Illinois who was accosted for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt and was told to go back to her country. People don't even know (or care) that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen. That doesn't end well.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, but given the left's newspeak of "undocumented immigrants" and the relentless portrayal of any kind of immigration enforcement as inherently racist it certainly seems like whatever the opposite of "the current administration" is pushing exactly the opposite narrative, that if you are Latino you have a default right to be in the US.
It seems to me that you can't even really advocate for any kind of immigration reform that includes any semblance of immigration enforcement without being seen as ra
Re:So, "immigrants"? (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.
This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen. There's 4 specific things that can lead to "Denaturalization" :
- Lying on your citizenship application.
- Refusing to conform to a congressional subpoena
- Joining a subversive group within 5 years of being naturalized (Think ISIS, Al-Qaeda)
- Dishonorable military discharge.
A simply felony or misdemeanor ? Nope. You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion. Which is it ?
Re:So, "immigrants"? (Score:5, Informative)
This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked.
This is false. In the US, for one, your citizenship can be revoked for treasonous acts, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation [time.com].
You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion.
You are grossly misinformed, and there's no alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
I did state as much in my post. Did you fail to read beyond the first sentence before you interjected ?
Do you have "RedK deranagement syndrome" my orange dot friend ? What did I ever do to you anyway.
I am not misinformed, as you have provided no extra information that I did not provide myself. You're only proving me right here.
Why link to theweek? (Score:2)
It's nice that the link to the actual story on eff.org is linked from the summary, but the fact is that the post on theweek added absolutely zero information to the story, and the eff.org link is the only one we need.
They signed a contract with the government? (Score:3)
Will shopping online save you? (Score:4)
And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online.
What makes you think the Delivery truck or person/drone walking up your driveway isn't equipped with a camera equipped with GPS, and/or footage won't be submitted to license plate recognition software, and shared with any Law Enforcement agency willing to pay for access to the shared database of License Plate/GPS locations?
Shoot... if ICE is willing to pay enough revenue for license plate data, they could probably convince Meter readers working for the Gas and Power companies to don a camera for a little extra $$$ on the side.
Re:Same here (Score:5, Funny)
I think that's a great idea.
I mean, those damned spacecraft really mess up my Wifi. You'd think an advanced civilization would have things cleaned up a bit.
Thanks for the tip.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best t-shirt I ever saw said something like this (probably not verbatim):
Se vi parolas du lingvojn, vi estas dulingva.
Se vi parolas tri lingvojn vi estas trilingva.
Se vi parolas unu lingvon vi estas usona
Re: (Score:2)
or speaks something that is not English
I hope this is a joke- no one is that foolish. If you call every time you hear someone speaking a foreign language you're wasting ICE's time. Tourists, visas, legal immigrants... plenty of people don't speak English in this country for many legitimate reasons. Heck, sometimes I don't speak English.
If you're reporting everyone that doesn't speak English- you'll pretty quickly find yourself in hot water with ICE for wasting their time.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the time I go into a store, people are speaking Spanish. Some of them probably are illegal, but many aren't. Including the cashier/teller who speaks it right back to them.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are a bit slow on the uptake. Imagine if *everyone* constantly reported everyone who looks like a foreign national to ICE.
Think about it a bit.
My instincts thought it read like a joke... but this is Slashdot and you never know- there is a lot of stupidity and racism on this forum, you can never be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw what you did there you big goof.
Re:Good for you sir! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! They can tell you what happens when you let the wrong people in.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.
Tell that to the Clovis people. I think they would have agreed with you and the "native" Americans wouldn't be here either. Unless you think they were taken away by actual aliens...
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.
This seems reasonable on the surface but how far back does it go? My understanding is that the people here when the Europeans arrived were not the earliest, or original, inhabitants. If you're familiar with Mexico you know that some are very indian while others are more European. Do we screen them all to see who stays and who goes? What's the criteria? As with so many slogans "Tell that to the Native Americans" is neither practical nor even what they would desire. I'd be perfectly willing to pull up s
Re:Good for you sir! (Score:5, Informative)
Vikings: a little more than 1,000 years ago.
Native Americans: a little more than 15,000 years ago.
No doubt they Vikings did arrive on these shores; but the continent was already long since populated.
Re:Good for you sir! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it IS that simple.
It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:
1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.
2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).
3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.
4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it IS that simple.
It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:
1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.
2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).
3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.
4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Your narrative is completely sympathetic to the illegal immigrants yet doesn't account for the losses to actual citizens. For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered. The children had to attend ESL classes at extra expense. Traffic and housing were slightly impacted for the worse. You may think these factors don't matter, and for sample size 1 it wouldn't, but when you have millions of illegals it adds up. Make immigration actually work for the existing citize
Re: (Score:3)
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
I agree the children did nothing wrong but the crimes of the parents should not grant the children citizenship. If the parents stole money and used it to buy a house would it be "cruel punishment" to remove the children from the house? The parents' "stole" citizenship and that does not mean the children get to benefit from it. If we allow children that were brought in illegally to retain this stolen citizenship then we are rewarding criminal behavior. It was not the government that imposed "cruel punish
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Agreed. However, you have no idea if poster *does* report other illegal activity.
Heh. You negated your point. Illegal immigrants know it exists, hence all the sneaking over the border.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the heck is so ignorant that they don't know crossing an international border without permission is illegal?
Re: Same here (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you are a criminal, ICE really doesn't have any standing to hassle you if you have a Green Card. If you are a criminal, then you are by law subject to potential deportation.
Once you have become an actual immigrant, and are no longer "just visiting", then ICE no longer has any jurisdiction over you.
Data collection, aggregation, and distribution has been a thing for a long time now. It really has nothing to do with the tribal partisan hysteria du jour.
It's much like the INS in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
> if you have a Green Card.
If you have a green card, you're not an illegal alien.
Thus this topic is not about you.
Why do some of you try so hard to conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so much ?
Re: (Score:3)
How [cincinnati.com] credulous [theoutline.com] can [miaminewtimes.com] you [denverpost.com] be [psmag.com]?
Re:Same here (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a troll. Look at his comment history.
At least he's doing it right.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were any other state, I would be less sure. California seems highly permissive and tolerant of illegals. That might actually work to the benefit of ICE here. Instead of being more underground, illegals might be more out in the open and easier to identify.
Also, ICE may be aware of the offending cars regardless of what shenanigans may have occurred to register them. That's really the explanation that makes most sense.
"Fishing" through this data probably is not terribly feasible.
Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats who want to abolish ICE are literally handing Donald Trump his reelection on a silver platter.
Let's not enforce any border laws and let's see how that turns out. Idiots.
I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm merely a centrist, but I agree that it is a foolish platform to take.
I'm against excessive and invasive persecution and hunting for illegals. I'm not blind to the fact that we need to limit illegal immigration. My main concern is that a lot of anti-immigration is down to bigotry and nationalistic sentiment that can escalate; and has rapidly escalated many many times in many many countries throughout history. It doesn't take long to get into some McCarthyistic witch hunt for immigrants, and start finding reasons to mark legal immigrants as criminals for obscure rules and start deporting them.
It's not ICE that I oppose- ICE Is important. It's the racist sentiment behind a lot of the actions of some of the laws that I oppose. It is the nationalism that could escalate dangerously that I oppose. The more fervent the head-hunting for illegals, the more likely that legal immigrants get caught up in this- either accidentally or deliberately. Already, there are plenty of stories of legal aliens being arrested and detained for months because they're mistaken as illegals.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it.
Right. And lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent those laws from being enforced.
No, no they are not. Nobody is trying to establish policies that will prevent laws against gang violence from being enforced. So that's a lie.
Lefty politicians are calling for the very agency that enforces those laws to be "abolished,"
ICE is violating its mandate by abusing people outside of that mandate. If it cannot stick to what it is supposed to be doing, then yes, it should be abolished.
and for people who violate those laws to be given sanctuary, free legal services, housing, protection from prosecution, etc.
"Free legal services" are a constitutional right. It's called due process, and if you are against due process, you are the same kind of traitor as Trump. Protection from prosecution is for non-violent crimes, n
Re: (Score:3)
ICE shouldn't be in the business of breaking up gangs.
That's not their mission, but it is a happy byproduct of their work when large numbers of people in certain especially violent international gangs happen to be in the country illegally. How are you not clear on this? A county cop can't kick an illegal alien career criminal out of the country. ICE can.