Prank Calls Brought ICE Hotline To a Standstill, Internal Emails Show (theverge.com) 457
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: When ICE launched an immigration crime hotline last year, the Trump administration pitched it as a way to provide resources to victims, but activists saw something else: an attack on the immigrant community. The hotline was part of the Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office, an outfit established in February 2017. When the office first launched a line for its services the following April, protestors flooded the hotline to call in pranks and slow down response times. The plan picked up even more steam as the protestors shared the hotline number online, encouraging others to call in with fake tips.
According to internal emails and documents obtained by The Verge under the Freedom of Information Act, prank calls fully upended the system, leaving operators unable to answer more than 98 percent of incoming calls during the protest as the media relations team attempted to contain the narrative. In reports and emails produced in the first days of operation, ICE officials described an "overwhelming" amount of calls. The day after the launch, the office received more than 16,400. Of those, only a little more than 2,100 were placed into a queue, and only 260 answered. Callers in the queue waited as long as 79 minutes to reach an operator. An official noted that, should the rate of calls continue, they would need an additional 400 operators to field the hotline.
According to internal emails and documents obtained by The Verge under the Freedom of Information Act, prank calls fully upended the system, leaving operators unable to answer more than 98 percent of incoming calls during the protest as the media relations team attempted to contain the narrative. In reports and emails produced in the first days of operation, ICE officials described an "overwhelming" amount of calls. The day after the launch, the office received more than 16,400. Of those, only a little more than 2,100 were placed into a queue, and only 260 answered. Callers in the queue waited as long as 79 minutes to reach an operator. An official noted that, should the rate of calls continue, they would need an additional 400 operators to field the hotline.
Enter AI? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Enter AI? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually a super-easy fix. Change the call-in to a "leave your number" system. Prioritize calls where the call-in number matches the caller ID. If crank callers want to leave their real phone number, more power to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as easy as it may sounds.
Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not as easy as it may sounds.
Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.
Prompt them to type in not just their phone number, but also their Driver's License number. Verify the DL number against the DL database before connecting the call.
Any "protestor" that goes past those two checkpoints and makes an obvious prank call --- criminally prosecute them under the full extent of the law, and make a public example of them (It's a felony to make false statements to a government official).
Re:Enter AI? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no national DL database
That's not really true anymore. There is RealID, which is pretty much fully implemented at this point. There are a few states with waivers because they haven't given all of their citizens the new IDs yet, but database connections are one of the criteria for compliance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try it. I would bet good money that no ICE agent will ever show up if that's all you had to report.
As racist as you think your opponents are, they really are not.
Re:Enter AI? (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole protest was just to clog the phone lines, not get ICE dispatched. Do try to keep up.
Re:Enter AI? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they can, but they don't and they won't. Getting people to follow a social media meme by dialing a phone number is easy. Getting people to follow a social media meme involving the machinations of caller ID spoofing is not as easy. So your problem set is smaller, and your problem is easier to manage. Don't let perfection get in the way of progress.
Re: Enter AI? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sincere or not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. The number of people who are willing to use their real phone number to file a fake report with law enforcement is going to be a lot less than the number who think they are being anonymous. And if not, it makes them even easier to track down for their summons. Stupid is as stupid does.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Better use of AI: Create an AI that can convincingly sound like an old man angry at his "latino" neighbors. Change the pitch and tone per call to mask that it's an AI, and have thousands of them call and flood the phone systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Errr, wha?
Re: Enter AI? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, stopping them from ever doing this again is the goal, because the hotline is a fascist tool that hurts people. I'm a citizen and I don't approve of these gestapo 1984 tactics.
Re: Enter AI? (Score:4, Insightful)
Suddenly not wanting to be raped or killed is fascist now.
No but blaming all society's ills on a bogeyman class is. In this case, immigrants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only rise of fascism in America is the rise in labeling everything you don't like as fascism.
Like a child repeating a word over and over again, until it becomes meaningless babble, the word "fascism" no longer means anything.
So that's a win, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
So that's a win, right?
TFS says Trump's making 400 new jobs with this program...
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.
I agree we need to update and fix the immigration laws. It should be fair, and a more simple and less $$ process, BUT, it also should allow for control of who all gets to come in. I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.
There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
While it is noble to take our great wealth and resources to help others around the world, we can NOT support the whole world and cannot house or bring everyone and their goat into our country.
If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there.....
ICE is the part of the federal government that helps control immigration and deports those that come here illegally. Why do we not support them?
Hell, one of the few constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government IS to protect our borders.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.
I agree we need to update and fix the immigration laws. It should be fair, and a more simple and less $$ process, BUT, it also should allow for control of who all gets to come in. I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.
There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
While it is noble to take our great wealth and resources to help others around the world, we can NOT support the whole world and cannot house or bring everyone and their goat into our country.
If countries, such as in South America are having such problems,.....we can't bring everyone here, those people need to fix things at HOME and stay there.....
ICE is the part of the federal government that helps control immigration and deports those that come here illegally. Why do we not support them?
Hell, one of the few constitutionally enumerated responsibilities and powers of the federal government IS to protect our borders.
I am liberal. I do not support 'wide open borders'. I do not know anyone that does.
You do know that most of the problems in central america are US caused. In Hondouras we helped with the coup that created the current shitty government, high murder rate and poor conditions. We push the war on drugs that only enriches cartels in these countries.
As to illegal immigrants. it is capitalists here that provide the opportunity. They are economically unwilling or unable to hire Americans and pay them a higher wage and taxes and instead hire illegals. Who should be punished in this scenario? The person looking for abetter life, or the businessman, farmer, construction company that exploits their labor to the detriment of citizens?
Also, this caravan - if it comes to a border point - this is legal asylum seeking. The office of refugee resettlement spends about half a billion per year resettling asylum seekers. Trumps camps cost 2 billion in just a few months. Sometimes it is cheaper just being a decent person.
This country has PLENTY. The only reason it does not feel like that to most is the artificial scarcity imposed by the oligarchy. This is the capitalism so many her slavishly and uncritically adore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, citations:
https://twitter.com/banditelli... [twitter.com]
https://thehill.com/opinion/im... [thehill.com] (this article quotes Keith Ellison repeatedly)
Only two, I know. Like an iceberg...
Then the implied and explicit support for open borders:
https://theweek.com/articles/7... [theweek.com] ( Zack Beauchamp exchange with a reader, Tom Stephenson, and later Zach states explicitly he is an open borders supporter)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... [nytimes.com] (Hillary Clinton 'dreamed of “open trade and open borders” throughout the Western Hemisphere.')
Hillary seems pretty mainstream Democrat unless you're trying to hide the details.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Funny)
They don't under international law refuges lose their status as soon as they set foot in a nation where they are safe from whatever specific force they are fleeing.
Unless you want to conceede Mexico is a failed state that cannot be accountable for protecting citizens there; than no non-mexican having passed thru Mexico can arrive at our southern boarder as a legitimate asylum seeker.
They are therefore simply illegal immigrants. When they are organized even minimally, as they are in this caravan they become invaders! Mexico allowing an invasion force to proceed thru its territory on the way to our boarder is an act of war and it should be treated like it!
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, I am in agreement that borders should be secure. As such there need to be processes in place to aid that objective.
On the other, this tip line is an incredibly easy way for any racist bigot who thought that someone looked at them funny, or was "in the wrong place" merely because they weren't white to make malicious calls; it's another form of SWATting, only this time it's government approved.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".
Perhaps we should ask the native Americans what they think of these "blow ins" from across the sea.
Re: (Score:3)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".
... and replace the torch with a middle finger. Once aspect of immigration, largely ignored in the debate, is that while in 2013 Central/South America make up about 70% of the group, Asians 15% and Europe / Canada / Africa / etc. the rest. If people started screaming about the 30% as well the argument and dynamics would change.
Source: https://www.migrationpolicy.or... [migrationpolicy.org]
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
But... all the outrage shown by these people against illegal immigration is fake. They want cheap strawberries and cheap fast food and cheap lawn mowing and cheap home construction. If they are really against illegal immigration they will prosecute the employers.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you dont clean up the sugar spilled on the middle of the floor and spend all your time putting ant shield around the house you would be called an idiot.
But... all the outrage shown by these people against illegal immigration is fake. They want cheap strawberries and cheap fast food and cheap lawn mowing and cheap home construction. If they are really against illegal immigration they will prosecute the employers.
As a concrete contractor who only hires legal workers, I welcome this wholeheartedly.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecute the employers, who are criminal by the very act of employing illegal immigrants. Simple civil prosecution, fines, make cost of employing illegal immigrants more expensive than hiring legal immigrants and citizens.
Ahhh. You wont do it. Because these criminals are white and affluent. You would rather fight the weak, poor, people willing work harder than any one for a pittance.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans own all the branches of the government. Democrats have absolutely no power to stop anything. Why haven't they made it possible to catch the criminal employers of the illegal immigrants?
I tell why. They want it this way. They want illegal immigrants working for a pittance working the hands to the bone. All the smoke and mirrors about the border wall is to fool the people. The Republicans want illegal immigrants to come in and work for low wages, That is the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".
You are not, but you should be aware that the Statue of Liberty poem was a piece of propaganda when it was written. I happen to agree with the poem, but I know what it is.
Perhaps we should ask the native Americans what they think of these "blow ins" from across the sea.
The Native American experience is probably the best example possible of why immigration is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Native American experience is probably the best example possible of why immigration is a bad thing.
Emigration wasn't the problem, being conquered by a foreign government was the problem. It's the best example possible not of why emigration is a bad thing, but of why unification is a good one. If the natives had been able to present a unified front instead of fighting with themselves at the same time that whitey was eating their lunch, they could have presented a rational and effective defense against white colonialist rule. Because they were cut off from the rest of the world, they failed to learn the le
Re: (Score:3)
I think Rome, from the period 200bce to 0 probably matches. They had a Republic, and the rules were fairly well set up for the people living in Italy at the time (it lasted for centuries, after all). Then in the later years, as Rome started conquering its neighbors,
Re: (Score:2)
Better update the Statue of Liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" needs to be replaces with "Fuck You, I got mine, go home brownies".
Gladly. Remove the plaque. It's an albatross around our neck. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France and meant to shine out as a beacon to spread the idea of liberty across the world. It was not a gift to make America the dumping ground of the world.
Perhaps we should ask the native Americans what they think of these "blow ins" from across the sea.
Yes, ask them. Did they have a choice in the matter? If they could choose, would they have prevented the mass migration? The US has that choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please point to where Emma Lazarus' poem is enshrined in the Constitution, I must've missed that one in law school!
Then how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All men, not just Americans. Yet there is a growing portion of this country that seems to think those rights don't apply to people outside the US, that they are less than human.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My family immigrated into the U.S. legally. Wait list, visa, green card, then finally citizenship. Treating all men equally means people who entered the country illegally should be booted out, and forced to go through th
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This current country was created by the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor some silly poem on a statue. Do they even teach civics at your high school anymore? They obviously don't teach how to argue without silly appeals to emotion.
Without the DoI we would still have been part of the British Empire so yes, the DoI was the first document creating the entity that eventually because the US.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, certain cultures in south and central america (and I assume others) are far, far more likely to have people who have no interest in becoming citizens and instead want the better life living here gives, while attempting to not integrate with the rest of society.
So give them an easy process to apply for a work visa that expires after, say, 6 months, and a process and criteria to renew that visa (for example go home for a month between visas, stay out of trouble, etc). They'll still be picking vegetables, working in warehouses/meatpackers, and mowing your lawn, jobs Americans arent doing anyway. Will some people skip out? Sure. Others will jump at that opportunity, won't have to live in fear, can work jobs with reasonable pay and conditions without bosses paying them $5 an hour cash under the table and treating them like animals, don't have to worry about being easy crime victims, etc. Win-win for everyone.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So give them an easy process to apply for a work visa that expires after, say, 6 months, and a process and criteria to renew that visa
We used to have such systems. Then "fear the brown hordes" became a useful campaign slogan.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I came in legally. I will remain distinct. At least Latin America is Christian. I am a graven image worshiping heathen/pagan. But legal. 100% naturalized. I intend to exercise ALL rights granted to me under the constitution. Freedom of Expression,. Freedom of Relgion. And yes, second amendment too.
America is a salad bowl, not a melting pot.
English first? Our motto E Pluribus Unum is not English. It is Latin.
Go back, learn about America and then talk to an immigrant like me.
Re: (Score:3)
The melting pot isn't about you. It's about your grandchildren.
Immigrants remain somewhat distinct. Their children mostly assimilate but still are a bit of a bridge. Their children completely assimilate.
Your grandchildren will be indistinguishable from any other American. That is the melting pot.
Re: (Score:2)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
If folks don't like that, then start to put pressure on your congress-critters and have them change the laws.
Paying attention to just that part of your comment, one of the problems is that Congress is so unresponsive to their constituents and fundamentally broken as an institution people are trying to work around it through putting pressure on the courts and executive departments. This is explicitly not the way this was ever meant to work.
Our institutions have so many veto points that it's impossible to get anything non-trivial done. The system was built on compromise and an assumption that the infighting would
Re: (Score:2)
This is explicitly not the way this was ever meant to work.
According to what, and to whom? Humans haven't become appreciably smarter than when the constitution was written. Probably the best way to read it is if it were intentional, and not simply produced by an infinite number of monkeys. If the electoral college seems to blunt the power of large states, and to keep voting power out of the hands of the people, then that's probably precisely what it was meant to do. We actually have writings other than the constitution which spell out this fact in so many words, so
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
> That is the current law.
Except it's not that straightforward. People have the legal right to seek asylum, and even if they are here illegally without seeking asylum they are still entitled to due process and basic human rights under both the US Constitution and international laws.
What we have here is not law enforcement, it's xenophobia and racism and abuse disguised as law enforcement. The ICE officers are in some ways more criminal than the people they're arresting.
> But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
That's because such people do not actually exist. Literally nobody is seriously advocating this. Asking that families not be ripped apart and children as young as 3 years old be made to defend themselves in court without representation is not the same as advocating "open boarders."
> Why do we not support them?
For the same reason people should never have supported the Schutzstaffel.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This smacks more of talking points than true factual rebuttal.
Any discussion on the correct path on immigration must be directed at the default handling, not exceptions. If we get that right we can fine tune exception handling. For the majority of cases, how is due process being circumvented? Due process can be expeditious, and even near assembly-line efficient (I've been to traffic court).
The "ripping babies from Mama's arms" narrative is more dramatic than factual. In a majority of cases, the minors were
Re: (Score:2)
This smacks more of talking points than true factual rebuttal. [...] In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members, who, at a minimum, endangered them by force marching them under unsafe, risky conditions and used them as unwitting participants in a crime.
You, sir, are a hypocrite. I need no more than the text above to be completely, utterly, and totally sure of this.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a majority of cases, the minors were not taken from mothers, but dubious/unverified family members
Citation very much needed.
Even if it were true, dubious/unverified by whom? Sounds very much like categorising anyone caught up in a drone strike as an enemy combatant because they happened to be near a bad guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There were literal boatloads of Jews seeking asylum prior to WWII and the US turned them away and sent them back to Germany. This was the law. This was also not a time that the US shined. We can do better, but I fear we probably won't.
Re: (Score:2)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
What has happened to “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore,”? America is literally built on the backs of immigrants. It's amazing that, as completely screwed up as our country is with political infighting, crumbling infrastructure, horrible and expensive healthcare, lack of adequate social service, and growing ethnic and nationalist sentiments, thousands and hundreds of thousands of people still see the US as th
Re: (Score:2)
You live in a world of platitudes, not the real world. And a world so focused on the US that you're blind to the rest of the world.
This country always accepts immigration. But without control it is just chaos. It's no different than the freeway; should we just let everyone onto the freeway when we want? If so, the freeway becomes a jumbled mess. Instead on-ramps have lights letting people on in a measured way, which allows for a more smoothly flowing system.
We aren't doing "control", we are trying to do "no immigration". The immigration system is broken and causes illegal immigration. And we have every duty and obligation to take in refugees from countries we helped fucked up. If that's too many countries, well, then that's our fault and we need to stop fucking up countries.
And no one wants to stop coming here. The opportunities and freedoms far outpace the rest of the world. India cannot provide opportunities fast enough to feed it's population; they come here to work in biotech and tech sectors. Chinese want to come here because the government is less likely to intrude on your lifestyle and offers far more acceptance of ambitious Chinese women in particular. Middle-easterners want to come here because they are less likely to be persecuted by one group or the next for following the wrong religion or being the wrong ethnic group. Hispanics want to come here because the opportunities for a better life are far more numerous than they are in South America.
If we keep on our current path, people will stop wanting to come here. Either because we will have made this place a terrible place for foreigners to live (which means it would be a ter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
They do care, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.
What they want is a system that manages immigration. A system that is humane and gives migrants a path to citizenship that rewards being a productive member of American society. They see that when immigrants are given the opportunity they are often hard working and valuable, and being economic benefits.
Of course there are some people with ill intent, but the same is true of society in general and it doesn't justify treating everybody badly.
And of course
Re: (Score:2)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
That has always been the law.
The problem is that it has been ignored for ages.
I haven't heard anyone complaining when illegal immigrants opened shops, paid taxes and even created jobs. In some agricultural areas the economy wouldn't work without cheap labor from illegal immigrants.
There is nothing wrong with setting strict immigration rules and enforcing them. But you can't enforce them at will when it's convenient. Yes, you have to start enforcing it at some point, but if at that point you haven't grandfathered in at least people who have been paying taxes for years (they are willing to contribute, that's the people you WANT to be in your country, no matter where they are from) that backlog will block all your ressources you would need to deal with new immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
I care about the borders, but I also care about the people trying to cross the borders. We're taking people who are seeking asylum and stealing their children away from them to scare them away (locking the kids away in facilities that charge thousands per day to hold them, but provide the barest minimum of services to CHILDREN). These are straight up terror tactics, only government condoned.
Isn't this also illegal (Score:2)
Isn't this also illegal? It seems like this would be equivalent to prank calling 911 which I'm pretty sure is already illegal in many areas. Calling in and harassing law enforcement or giving fake tips to a crime seems like something that a person should be able to be prosecuted for. I'm all for peaceful protesting and call your congressman by the thousands and complain all you want but law breakers should be prosecuted not cheered. I saw a similar article today about a bunch of graffiti all over Yale a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Determining who is here "illegally" is a -- wait for it -- legal process. People claiming asylum or who have other legitimate, defined by our law, claims have a legal right to due process and have their case heard and a determination made.
Separating out who has a legitimate claim versus, say, an economic claim, can take time. This is the entire purpose of the Immigration Court system in the United States.
Keeping in mind you can't make a claim of asylum unless you're actually on our soil. People who have leg
Re: I don't get it... (Score:2)
Havenâ(TM)t you heard? Orange man bad. Trump can get dems to oppose literally anything, simply by speaking in favor of it. Heâ(TM)s literally trying to abolish modern day slavery by not letting sub-minimum-wage slaves into the country and dems respond with a âoewhoâ(TM)s going to pick our cotton thenâ message, just like they did in 1865.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is illegal to employ an illegal immigrant. There are people who employ them. All your anger seems to be at the illegal immigrant and not the employer.
Logically the employer has a business, and has a lot to lose if prosecuted. Prosecution is civil not criminal. If we spend 10% of the resources spent on the border enforcement on the enforcing the criminal who employs these illegal immigrants, the jobs will vanish and the illegal immigration will stop. Cold.
Just by employing that illegal immigrant the employer becomes criminal. Even if otherwise he/she is running a legitimate business and pays taxes. I am sure you will go through all kinds of justification why the criminal who employs the illegal immigrant should not be prosecuted.
On the other hand, the life is so bad in their home country, the people are willing to risk death crossing hostile countries, criminal gangs, fatal desert to come to USA. You want to deter these people who have nothing to lose. How? How much effort would it take to stop people who are willing to die in an attempt to come here?
Compare that enforcement effort with what it would take to round up the employers, fine them, make the cost of employing illegal immigrant not worth it.
The criminal employers are largely white. Largely affluent. Politically connected. The criminal employees are largely hispanic. Largely poor. Other than the sporadic support from the powerless Democrats they are not much of a political force.
I just report the facts. You decide if you are a racist or not.
Re: I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
what has happened
Nothing. You've been sold a lie as the cause of whatever you perceive to be problems (in an age of a healthy economy and low unemployment to boot.) You think you care, but you don't have a clue as to what your problems are or what's causing them. You just want an "easy" solution that populists can sell you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The liberals simply want to see people treated respectfully.
I've spent a few months in Mexico.. I'd take the average Mexican laborer over the average American laborer every day. They are willing to work harder for less pay and no bitching. Business owners secretly want this as well and this is why massive immigration reform never seems to get done.
Re: (Score:2)
Drunk driving being illegal is also the law of your country but you don't seem to care much about it. That is kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
"Truth is the law allows migrants to present themselves at our borders & seek asylum" - lawyer Lee Merritt [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
People DO care. A small excessively-boisterous minority of people that respects no rules of civility, and some of whom are being paid to be part of creating the disruption are tyrannizing us as a country.
These progressives are less than perhaps10% of the population, but they're well-organized and active, being activists is likely their full-time job, And your group doesn't have to have anything close to a majority
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just a thought, maybe the reason that Republicans control every branch of government is because they are listening to what their constituents are telling them.
Many of which have long wanted effective border enforcement. Which would entail making ICE stronger not abolishing it.
You're forced to parrot that ridiculous idea because it would be a no-story to say that you agree with the president that the border needs enforcing. After all, Obama was separating illegal immigrant kids from their so-called parents -
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
Let me give you a liberal perspective on this: you are raising a straw man. We have no problem with protecting the border, the problem we have is with using scapegoating and scare-mongering, and bullshit waste of resources like building a wall. If you want to see the source of our problems, it's rich guys buying politicians, not Mexicans sneaking across the border to pick crops.
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
No, "trespass" has a specific meaning in law, and an unauthorized crossing of the border does not match that, even if it feels like tresspassing. And even as it were, the law allows people to enter your land against your wishes under certain circumstances. If a neighbor goes on your posted land to hunt, that's trespass. If he goes onto your posted land to escape a home invader, it's not trespass.
Treaties the US imposed on other people after WW2 also bind us when it comes to handling asylum seekers. We don't have to help them get here, but we do have to give them due process and administrative help when they get here, even if they sneak across our borders. It's actually the government that is breaking the law by turning asylum seekers away at the border without a hearing, which of course means they sneak across, which makes policing the border that much harder.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
That was how we did immigration up until 1927. You showed up at Ellis Island, were checked for disease, promised you weren't an anarchist and they'd ship you over to the docks at Battery Park and let you go anywhere you wanted. The 1927 quotas were proposed by eugenicists, who were worried that the influx of Jews was lowering America's collective IQ.
Now if you were Mexican, you weren't part of the quota system. You could still walk across the border until 1965. That was because business interests needed the cheap labor. What changed in 65 was the rise of the United Farm Workers. Now this *might* just be coincidence, but if you look at how the'65 restrictions were enforced, they did not stem the influx of immigrants, so much as put those immigrants outside the protection of the law and made it harder for them to organize. The government didn't go after farmers hiring Mexicans, they went after the Mexicans. And the Mexicans they deported would be immediately replaced by other Mexicans, because there was a job waiting for them.
Now restrictions on employers have become stricter, but we still have a system which is dependent upon immigrant labor, but puts those laborers outside the protection of the law. That's the problem with the tip line; it's a tool for payback against people with no rights of due process. This is the problem of immigration in the US: the hypocrisy of the whole system corrupts things that would otherwise be a good idea.
What good does building a wall do if you can just pay someone to wave you through? And yet the demand for immigration security theater has the agency relaxing [azcentral.com] screening standards that are supposed to catch cartel infiltrators, in an agency that already has a stunning 5% corruption rate [reason.com]. Immigration security theater undermines national security.
Now change the immigration so it allows for the immigrant laborers we actually need and keeps the people who've been here for years peacefully
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
fear, fear, fear
it's always the same with you folks
your masters drive you with fear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ellis Island received more than 250.000 immigrants in April 1907 alone. That seemed to work out ok.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The caravan/army/mob is already here.
It's the late arrivals coming after your great-grandparents that you have a problem with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean the Great Grand Parents that came over Legally?
The ones that went through Ellis Island or any of the other legal ports of entry?
See the difference?
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, every one of your ancestors came through after 1891. Understood.
Prior to the Immigration Act of 1891 all anyone (who was not Asian) had to do to immigrate to the U.S. was show up at the border (or any port). And prior to 1875 even Asians could immigrate freely.
In 1891 the U.S. population was 61 million. Anyone who has even one ancestor who was resident in the U.S. in 1891 is descended from someone who only had to show up to get in - everyone was automatically "legal".
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's your point?
They came in legally back then.
How many other 1891 era laws do you want to go back to?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My great-great-great grandparents came, stood in line, and asked for permission to immigrate. Then they found land in a difficult region, farmed, and prospered.
On the other side of my family they came from England, carved a farm out of the woods, never met American Indians, and convinced the post-Revolution government to honor the land grant they received from the King of England. From then on they farmed hard, lumbered (both sides did this, odd), sent 19 sons and daughters to wars, smuggled booze, were act
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
No one before 1875 needed "permission to immigrate" you only needed a boat ticket, and it was only Asians who were excluded then, Europeans just needed that boat ticket until 1891, when the first immigration system was set up. Since you specify ancestors five generations back you are specifying people who came through around 1860 or so.
So this story you tell is founded on BS. And the bit about "never met American Indians" is fairly astonishing. You know that for a fact? How?
So you self-justifying story of totally legal and approved ancestors who never did anything wrong is a fairy tale.
And right, Europeans who came to the U.S. never celebrated their country of origin (cough, cough, NY St. Patricks Day Parade).
What is that unarmed invading army of women and children (mostly) going to do when they reach the border? They are going to request asylum under U.S. law as they are legally permitted to do once they reach U.S. soil. OMG Invaders!
Trump has already said he plans on calling out the military to deal with the situation - just as you seem to endorse. I guess rather than taking asylum applications, the plan is to open fire?
Re: (Score:3)
The caravan/army/mob is already here.
It's the late arrivals coming after your great-grandparents that you have a problem with.
So you think it's the same thing? Does that mean you feel we should be afraid of them? I mean, how well did the natives do against our "great-grandparents?"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thousands of Middle Easterners and Africans have entered the U.S. via the southern border. What's up for debate is how many of them have ties to terroristic organizations. But the existence of Arabs and other non-Hispanics among the migrants is hardly up for debate.
It's likely and possible that a handful of the current caravan are of Middle Eastern origin. How can one say for certainty that there aren't, when there is a history of such migrant behavior?
Regarding the funding and leadership of this group,
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the funding and leadership of this group, it is also highly likely that someone with an interest in undermining the Trump Administration would at least be supportive of the caravan if not actively funding and guiding it.
I'm sure quite a few people that don't like Trump are supportive of the caravan. But that's not what they were arguing, and that's not what their base would hear. And "supporting" something is different than actively funding or guiding something (which is precisely what Republicans have been claiming they are doing). That why you have people shipping bombs [nytimes.com] to Soro's house.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's likely there are [axios.com]...
Which isn't the least unusual, nor new. Trying to argue that any burst of migrants from south of Mexico doesn't include nasty people, like felons or such, is kinda stupid. It's predictable. And it's not even the primary reason to stop them at the border and do the due diligence that is entirely reasonable for a nation with actual borders.
Remember, this is fortuitous timing for both sides of the debate on immigration. Just keep the popcorn coming, folks.
Re: (Score:3)
Like the Koch brothers that the left throws out?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
usual nonsensical NPC talking points. (enforcing borders is racist, we have infinite jobs money and resources so we don't need borders etc)
"They're taking our jobs" is really a shallow and dense way of thinking about the issue and shows a lack of thought- just parroting what you hear from ideologues.
Immigrants wear clothes (someone has to make, design, sell, market). They eat food (someone has to grow food, make phone, package food, sell food, market food). They have many needs- needs are filled by jobs. Teachers need to teach them. Doctors need to heal them. Entertainers need to entertain them. Having a population CREATES jobs. It may
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, 1968, halcyon days...
On April 4, Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.
The Orangeburg Massacre on February 18.
The Black Panthers emerged, with their own special brand of protests.
Bobby Kennedy was assassinated on June 5.
And the Democrat Party National Convention, a festival of peace and nonviolence. Not.
Yeah, we need more of that like we need a new strain of smallpox.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope there's a new rebellious spirit born in the US and it will look like 1968 all over again.
You want Nixon elected presidentt?
Re: (Score:2)
fuck the law.
fuck those who enforce it.
fuck this country too.
I hope there's a new rebellious spirit born in the US and it will look like 1968 all over again.
Hint: You've got a better chance of surviving The Purge if you're a gun-totin' prepper type... not a campus hipster.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, enjoy being a literal slave to disney.
Re: (Score:2)
"why should people in a one geographic region control who can come and go to said region"
This idea is similar, superficially, to the concept of controlling who can come into your home, though for similar and still superficial reasons.
Easy Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a serious felony to prank-call LEAs. Prosecute the prank-callers and put them in prison. As soon as the first wave of prosecutions occur, the prank-calling will all but disappear.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some immigrants are more brazen than others (Score:2)
I understand members of the American public are justifiably outraged by the presence in the United States of some particularly heinous scofflaws. Apparently these evil people have managed to anger tens of thousands of upstanding American citizens, who have reported them to ICE repeatedly.
Chinga-Sue Madray, ICE is coming for you! Afooku Sosumi, there will be nowhere for you to hide! Sookma Har-Dwon, soon you will regret slipping into America!
You have been warned. Govern yourselves accordingly!
Too much talking (Score:3)
they would need an additional 400 operators
I have done consultancy work on some major call centres. If it takes an agent more than 3 minutes on average to process a call, including wrap-up time after the caller has gone, then there is something wrong with the IT.
At that rate an agent working an 8 hour shift would be expected to handle about 160 calls. To require 400 agents to field 16,000 calls means they are taking 40 calls per person in a shift. Maybe down to 20 if the call centre is running 2 shifts. There will be peak times when some calls will be lost, but using those numbers as a guide means that the agents are taking far too long handling each call.
A poem (Score:5, Insightful)
no one leaves home unless
home is the mouth of a shark.
you only run for the border
when you see the whole city
running as well.
your neighbours running faster
than you, the boy you went to school with
who kissed you dizzy behind
the old tin factory is
holding a gun bigger than his body,
you only leave home
when home won't let you stay.
no one would leave home unless home
chased you, fire under feet,
hot blood in your belly.
it's not something you ever thought about
doing, and so when you did -
you carried the anthem under your breath,
waiting until the airport toilet
to tear up the passport and swallow,
each mouthful of paper making it clear that
you would not be going back.
you have to understand,
no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land.
who would choose to spend days
and nights in the stomach of a truck
unless the miles travelled
meant something more than journey.
no one would choose to crawl under fences,
be beaten until your shadow leaves you,
raped, then drowned, forced to the bottom of
the boat because you are darker, be sold,
starved, shot at the border like a sick animal,
be pitied, lose your name, lose your family,
make a refugee camp a home for a year or two or ten,
stripped and searched, find prison everywhere
and if you survive and you are greeted on the other side
with go home blacks, refugees
dirty immigrants, asylum seekers
sucking our country dry of milk,
dark, with their hands out
smell strange, savage -
look what they've done to their own countries,
what will they do to ours?
the dirty looks in the street
softer than a limb torn off,
the indignity of everyday life
more tender than fourteen men who
look like your father, between
your legs, insults easier to swallow
than rubble, than your child's body
in pieces - for now, forget about pride
your survival is more important.
i want to go home, but home is the mouth of a shark
home is the barrel of the gun
and no one would leave home
unless home chased you to the shore
unless home tells you to
leave what you could not behind,
even if it was human.
no one leaves home until home
is a damp voice in your ear saying
leave, run now, i don't know what
i've become.
but i know that anywhere is safer than here. (Painting: Holy Family Icon by Kelly Latimore)
Re: Immigrant criminals! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a country as my home, just a political unit that I happen to be unfortunate enough to live under.
So you wouldn't mind if people destroyed the roads, for example ?
Re: (Score:2)
"Countries are just lines drawn in the sand with a stick." - Enter Shikari
Re: (Score:2)
It's a well established form of protest. Most protest is some kind of denial of service attack, be it temporarily blocking a road as you march down it or peacefully sitting in an area. Other examples include paying fines in pennies and deliberately spoiling ballot papers.
The correct term is "protest calls".
Re: (Score:2)
More like wasting the resources of a poorly thought out institution that serves no real purpose other than to validate bigotry.