US Takes Step To Require DNA Samples From Asylum-Seekers (apnews.com) 357
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Associated Press: The Trump administration is planning to collect DNA samples from asylum-seekers and other migrants detained by immigration officials and will add the information to a massive FBI database used by law enforcement hunting for criminals, a Justice Department official said. The Justice Department on Monday issued amended regulations that would mandate DNA collection for almost all migrants who cross between official entry points and are held even temporarily. The official said the rules would not apply to legal permanent residents or anyone entering the U.S. legally, and children under 14 are exempt, but it's unclear whether asylum-seekers who come through official crossings will be exempt. The new policy, which was first reported in October, would allow the government to collect DNA samples from hundreds of thousands of people booked into federal immigration custody each year for entry into a national criminal database. Immigrant and privacy advocates said at the time that the move "raised privacy concerns for an already vulnerable population that could face profiling or discrimination as a result of their personal data being shared among law enforcement authorities."
Trump administration officials say hope the database will lead to more crimes being solved and act as a deterrent to prevent migrants from trying to enter the United States. The new regulations go into effect Tuesday.
Trump administration officials say hope the database will lead to more crimes being solved and act as a deterrent to prevent migrants from trying to enter the United States. The new regulations go into effect Tuesday.
The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
What's not commonly known is WHY this is a thing.
The rules around asylum requests fast-tracked families with small children. Well, incentives being what they are, it didn't take long for the word to get out. Find a child, take them with you, and you get in faster. You can see where this is going - kidnappings, abductions, child trafficking, etc.
Well, once testing started, turns out a large number of lone individuals with a small child were not related to the child. This should invalidate the fast-tracking of the adult.
Once word gets out that cheating the system this way doesn't work anymore, the lives of children will get much better. Fix the incentives, and you improve the system for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Have we thoroughly vetted our tests? If we are going to be taking the children we really should be positive that the test is accurate.
Sweden tried their hand at rapid DNA testing and found it to be far too inaccurate.
https://nfc.polisen.se/siteassets/dokument/informationsmateria
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:4, Informative)
"In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren't theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system's temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday."
https://www.washingtonexaminer... [washingtonexaminer.com]
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:4, Insightful)
That's misleading because it says 30% of those "suspected" of not being related to their children. TFA doesn't tell us how many were suspected, so maybe it was 3 and one of them turned out to by lying... Or not, because the child was adopted or they just genuinely didn't know who the true parent was.
The first thing that needs to be established is how many were suspected, and then of the 30% of those who tested negative how many turned out not to be the legal guardians of those children.
Re: (Score:3)
> it says 30% of those "suspected"
Because ICE has other means to try and determine if a fraudulent family claim is made and the pilot program was voluntary. Suspected means that those other means were employed at the time and the DNA test was to confirm it or to get a confession.
DNA testing is one more tool to ensure valid claims and to discourage child trafficking from happening in the first place. The point being that ICE is going from a pilot program to full policy because of the fraudulent claims tha
Re: (Score:3)
The first thing that needs to be established is how many were suspected, and then of the 30% of those who tested negative how many turned out not to be the legal guardians of those children.
You don't get numbers unless you test.
Not the point. The point is that the 30% figure on its own says nothing about how common it is for people to use stolen children to get fast-tracked for asylum. It only says that when CBP officials think kids don't appear to be related to their putative parents, they're right 30% of the time (and wrong 70% of the time).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why that is... New policies in the current administration has caused the number of cases to skyrocket. One of these brought back about 330,000 cases that had already been closed.
The backlog is a manufactured concern.
Re: The "why" behind it (Score:2, Insightful)
OMFG, what an absolutely stupid post. How do you step outside everyday with such a horrible view of other humans?
And folks are so used to such extreme versions of reality that they simply assume you must be right and mod you Informative.
There is NO evidence of ANYTHING you said. Percentage wise, it's hardly above the margin of error and usually falls under a rounding issue. Do you understand how absolutely brain dead incompetent our immigration system, courts, ICE agents, police, and residents have to be t
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: The "why" behind it (Score:2)
How do you prove someone isn't a legal guardian under these circumstances?
I understand the potential for child abductions but this doesn't prove anything along those lines. Is it just going to be used as evidence against them in their hearing, like a big gotcha? I mean if they knew the kid wasn't blood related then they're a legal guardian unless you can prove otherwise, or they say otherwise.
Isn't that how it works here? We can't just go around dna sampling people and snatching up children that don't ma
Re: (Score:3)
This is another pointless boondoggle, and a very obvious attempt to get immigration to the level trump wants it at, zero, excluding his next wife.
Which is not only hypocritical, it's really F'd up since
Re: (Score:3)
I think you underestimate just how ugly the world imagines the US of A ;).
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why are hundreds of thousands still trying to sneak in every year if this is such an awful place full of awful people?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are hundreds of thousands still trying to sneak in every year if this is such an awful place full of awful people?
Because they aren't shouting about it down in south america and america keeps going on about how fucking awesome they are and how everything is better and its just fucking paradise. Where else do you think they are going to go? The only other real option is canada and well, you gotta get through the US first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But we've had months with 100,000+ people coming here illegally. The drug gangs are not beheading 100,000 people a month. They're not coming here because violence they're coming here because they want money.
That said, I completely agree the drug cartels are massively enriched by the war on drugs. Legalize drugs and let Phillip Morris grow cocaine and profit off the human misery. At least they're not beheading anyone.
Re: The "why" behind it (Score:2)
But we've had months with 100,000+ people coming here illegally. The drug gangs are not beheading 100,000 people a month.
You're talking about PEOPLE, not the Starcraft AI. What mathematical rule are you trying to invoke here?
Re: (Score:3)
The story is about Aslyum seekers, not illegal aliens. It's hard to get DMNA from someone who snuck in and you don't even know they're here.
A little less than 100,000 asylum seekers a year, lately, which is a large increase from previous administrations. With a ceiling of 30,000 to be granted the past year, which is the lowest number in the history of the program, and an even lower 22,500 ceiling set for fiscal year 2020. Meanwhile, there
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
But we've had months with 100,000+ people coming here illegally.
Seeking asylum is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy with the nickname "Meth StalinSodomy"
Re: (Score:2)
Well I hope you tipped the man.
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're wealthy because the black market means you get a 7000% profit margin selling a cheap-ass plant. Now, I don't wanna do anything illegal, but I'd kill a man, in front of his own momma, for a 7000% profit margin. If you make it legal all you get is regular 2% retail profits, which are hardly worth beheading anyone over.
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if cocaine was legalized, the bulk of it would still most likely come from South America.
But the money would go to the coca farmers instead of the criminal cartels.
Legalization does not get rid of the drugs, it gets rid of the criminals.
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
Drug cartels are not wealthy because of the war on drugs, they are wealthy because there is a DEMAND for their product. Even if cocaine was legalized, the bulk of it would still most likely come from South America.
No, they are wealthy because there is demand for their ILLEGAL product. If it were legal, which it would be if the USA didn't demand otherwise when we tamper with other nation's politics, then it wouldn't have so much associated value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The "why" behind it (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate just how ugly the world imagines the US of A ;).
I think the world only gets the briefest glimpses of how ugly the usa can be and thats bad enough.
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
Children are separated from their families who commit crimes every day. Why aren't you protesting that? The government isn't kidnapping anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice strawman. Those children "separated by families who commit crimes" are not locked up as well. And if you're going to seriously go down the path of stating that the families' immigrations are illegal, please also acknowledge that the current administration has intentionally shut down ways of legitimately entering the country including eliminating ways of claiming asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
The current administration is trying to close down loopholes to try to curb the overwhelming flow of immigrants across out border.
We can't take EVERYONE.....do we not have the right to pick and choose who we allow to legally immigrate into our country?
Do we not have the right to try to discourage ILLEGAL crossings of our borders?
By th
Re: (Score:3)
Except as asylum-seekers, which they absolutely have the right to do. They don't have the right to immigrate, but the right to cross our border is enshrined in ratified treaties. Treaties that were ratified by the states and supercede all US laws, executive orders, and anything except the Constitution itself.
You want to change it? Fine, but it's going to take a lot more than wishful thinking or illegal acts.
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Informative)
Asylum seekers have the right to turn themselves in at a border crossing. They don't have the right to "sneak in".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The basis for the claim everyone uses about how the government 'lost' thousands of children is actually from a ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) report which simply stated that of the thousands of children placed in temporary care approximately 1500 weren't able to be contacted when attempting a follow-up call.
That's the entire basis, 1500 people simply didn't answer the phone when called. There were no boots on the ground teams sent out to check or any other special actions taken, they simply called th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why people keep modding this point down, Sessions and other members of the Trump administration said it was their intent. In fact TFA mentions that yet again they are saying that DNA testing is designed to be a deterrent to people claiming asylum. Claiming asylum is a perfectly legal thing to do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, asylum can be claimed when the person is at risk of harm and cannot rely on the authorities in that country to protect them. That can include things like ineffective police forces unable to prevent organized crime violence, or fleeing from civil war zones like Syria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm poor and want more money" is not valid reason for asylum. Not only has it never been a reason for asylum, but to accept that now would be to throw open the doors to almost the entire world.
Not only that, but it's just a strawman argument. If you have any idea of the work it takes to get from where they were to where they arrived, no. Just no. The cost is much greater than any potential return other than safety.
Re: (Score:2)
They separate them IF the cross illegally, which means they have committed criminal offenses, and as a general crime policy, you don't send the children to adult jail with the criminal adults....regardless if the crime is crossing the b
Re: (Score:2)
They separate them IF the cross illegally,
The correct process for applying for asylum is to first enter the country. The backlog for applicants has deliberately been permitted to grow such that it takes years to go through the process. This effectively is denying people asylum, and the USA has agreed to accept asylum seekers by international agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
They separate them IF the cross illegally,
The correct process for applying for asylum is to first enter the country.
Yes, enter at a legal checkpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, enter at a legal checkpoint.
As I stated previously, they've made that process take so long that it's worthless, which is a way to obey the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit. And they also instituted the family separation policy explicitly for the purpose of dissuading people from entering at legal checkpoints. It's working, and you're acting surprised. But you're not a very good actor.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bottom line is....DON'T cross the border into our country illegally.
International treaties supercede US laws - and we've ratified those treaties
It doesn't matter where you cross, it's legal if you present yourself as an asylum seeker. There is a very good reason that it's still legal - to prevent corrupt governments from trying to get around the responsibilities that they've already agreed to by delaying processing at official border corssings.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The "why" behind it (Score:2)
The US government has a so-called "Family separation" policy
I'm still waiting to be shown a country that doesn't separate people from their kids when they're arrested.
This is all bullshit; there are vast corporate interests that want to open the cheap-labor floodgates to desperate, vulnerable foreign "refugees" (i.e. indentured slaves) and that's all there is to it.
End of fucking story.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The "why" behind it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, children being used to get past the border is a response to the US policy that allowed people to enter the country if they had a child because "think of the children".
Traffickers and coyotes are not stupid and they adapt to the policy we have and take advantage of our good will.
Re: (Score:2)
No, children being used to get past the border is a response to the US policy that allowed people to enter the country if they had a child because "think of the children".
Our asylum process requires that you be in the country to apply. We create this policy and then cry about consequences. Except... there's no evidence that any substantial number of people are doing what you claim, and we know beyond any doubt that the majority of the children who have been kidnapped were kidnapped from their parents. But we don't keep records so that we can reunite them, even if we find out we're wrong, which is a gross miscarriage of justice and a violation of the right to due process, bes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> requires that you be in the country to apply
No, it allows you to also request asylum at an Embassy.
> We create this policy
The policy was made in 1997 with a court settlement [wikipedia.org]. At the time the complaint was it looked bad to "lock families in cages". Sound familiar? So the courts and the Executive made an agreement on what should happen to immigrants and asylum seekers with a minor to ensure due process and humane treatment.
>there's no evidence that any substantial number of people are doing what yo
Re: (Score:2)
Vetting immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)
This will and should be a standard part of the immigration process. As law enforcement around the world adopts DNA databasing, it will becomes a vital part of the background check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paris Accord: not ratified by the Senate.
Iran Deal: not ratified by the Senate.
"Deals" with a foreign state not ratified by the Senate is not a deal and does not have the force of law.
Regardless, wasn't both of those "non-binding"? What's the difference between being part of a non-binding deal and not?
Re: (Score:2)
Sneaking into the country illegally is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go to a port of entry to seek asylum and your claim will be processed.
Our immigration and asylum courts are overburdened and the Secretary of Homeland security has directed that all asylum seekers must go through a port of entry.
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of laws that allow you to benefit from a crime.
Adverse possession is one. The crime of theft of property, if done for long enough while going unnoticed, is rewarded with being given rights to that property.
Same here. It's a crime to enter the country in the manner they are doing it. If they successfully argue for asylum after being caught they may get a benefit from this crime, but it doesn't negate the fact that they commited a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
In adverse possession, "going unnoticed" would normally not lead to a successful outcome for the squatter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Although the elements of an adverse possession action are different in every jurisdiction, a person claiming adverse possession is usually required to prove non-permissive use of the property that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse and continuous for the statutory period."
Re: (Score:2)
Migrants/Asylum Seekers (Score:2)
I love the terminology. It sounds like we are stopping people from following reindeer herds across the tundra.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First! (Score:4, Informative)
Most states already collect DNA from criminals and people who were arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Asylum seekers are not criminals and should not be arrested because claiming asylum is legal. It doesn't matter where they cross the border either.
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't asylum seekers. The use of the term is disgusting but typical of SJW who try to reframe the story to suit their needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Trump administration is calling the asylum seekers. Who are you claiming is an SJW here, the Justice Department?
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't. They aren't asylum seekers. They are economic opportunity seekers. A perfectly valid reason to come to the US, but don't pretend that they are doing it for any reason (the vast majority). There isn't anything wrong with it, but it cheapens the term of "asylum seekers" because there are people who are really in need of asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the paperwork you signed, that's what you are. Whether you are ultimately denied, you have that right under ratified US treaties (that are superseded only by the Constitution in legal force).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except if your entry was to claim asylum, that crossing was not illegal. Ratified international treaties supersede US laws (except the Constitution). Trying to even claim it as an illegal crossing is disingenuous and misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the people being trafficked, raped, and abused by cartel coyotes so you can feel smug in your Godwin.
False dichotomy. Don't act like separating all parents from their children and then subjecting them to genetic testing is the only way to handle this. It's hard to worry about the inhumane treatment of children when it pales in comparison to our own.
Re: (Score:2)
"subjecting them to genetic testing"
LOL. You mean like drawing a vial of blood or a cheek swab? Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because that's the bad part of genetic testing....
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite. What is the "bad part"? How do you identify the parent of a child without "genetic testing"?
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Maury Povich?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a sure-fire way to not be separated from your children: don't drag them with you while committing crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeking asylum is 100% legal under US law and treaties (international treaties are only second to the Constitution), and those treaties do state that crossing the border anywhere is completely valid as long as you present yourself to the authorities as soon as you can. If you want to change treaties, you need a lot more than executive orders - or even a simple vote by Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, it should be noted that of 195 countries that signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the US is one of only 2 countries that haven't ratified it. That doesn't mean that there aren't other laws. Just the most obvious one, the US is strikingly absent. Even if the US has not made this specific treaty law, the worldwide consensus is that these are a child's rights.
Article 9 within it states:
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
The US signed the treaty 2.5 decades ago. In principle, this is an American belief too.
The affairs of the US are run by treaties that we did ratify into US law. This one excluded, there are still several from the earlier refugee conventions that are being violated.
Re: (Score:2)
It sort of sounds like you're for the bad guys, want to stop any vetting, and you don't really care about the children.
Enough with the lazy "think of the children" arguments.
Of course vetting and how we do it is on our terms not theirs.
And several international treaties, many of which we are presently violating.
Re: (Score:2)
I missed it. What is your idea of addressing the problem?
So far the only solutions I have heard are 1) ignore it 2) paternal testing. You say it was a false dichotomy but have yet to give alternatives to actually addressing the problem.
Right now we have a problem of overburden immigration and asylum courts with loop holes that incentivizes human trafficking, child abduction, and sexual assault.
Curious... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a link between immigrants and crime [justfacts.com]. No, it's not as you've often heard about "no link!" - there actually is, but because the data says small to "we don't know how much, but it is more", the media trumpeted it as "there isn't any because it's not definitive".
This regulation/"Trump terror rule" was in effect since 2005 [latimes.com]. Conveniently, President Obama suspended the rule because it was "too expensive". Even canceled fingerprinting. Now, I don't know how much anyone here travels Internationally, but I travel quite a bit. I know when I enter most 1st and 2nd world countries, they collect fingerprints and photographs of my face. We weren't even doing that...
What this is, is the Trump Administration seeing the link between illegal aliens coming in over the Southern border and crime. And seeing that the Obama Administration ignored a law (and ended up breaking the law by ignoring it) that could help solve some of the increased crime that happens from that unchecked immigration. And deciding to start the program back up.
But I get it. Orange Man Bad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess you're referring to the stat that immigrants to the US are 79% less likely to be incarcerated than non-immigrants?
Re:Curious... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess you're referring to the stat that immigrants to the US are 79% less likely to be incarcerated than non-immigrants?
Yeah, if you lump all immigrants together you get bullshit statistics. If you look only at illegal immigrants (and ignore the fact that they crossed the border illegally) the crime rate among them is substantially higher.
If you act like my RN wife is the same as an illegal immigrant, then you can make illegal immigrants look better. But you're not being honest if you do that.
Ironically, in Nashville I don't think it's so much the illegal immigrants committing crimes as it is their children. "Brown pride" gangs are a thing.
Re:Curious... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am referring to the data I linked to [justfacts.com]. Specifically:
Based on U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015, immigrants who remain in the U.S. and ... are not U.S. citizens are 7% more likely than the general U.S. population to be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
Which apparently you chose to ignore. Immigrant, not a citizen (as would be the status for an illegal alien)? You have a 7% higher chance of being in prison.
Additionally, we find that:
Based on U.S. Census data from 2011 to 2015, Latin American immigrants who remain in the U.S. are 5.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than European immigrants and 6.3 times more likely than Asian immigrants
So if we want to encourage immigration (which I support - my wife is an immigrant, and we took the time to do the visa application correctly, and she ultimately became a citizen in December 2018), should we choose from the higher crime group, or the lower crime group? I would posit most people would prefer to encourage immigration of those less likely to commit crimes.
Furthermore, we find that 35% of California's prison population is non-citizen immigrants. Yet only 13% of the CA population are non-citizen immigrants [ppic.org] (27% of the State population is immigrant, but 52% of those are naturalized citizens now). That means that, at least in California, non-citizen immigrants are three times more likely to end up in prison as citizens.
It is more than just crime, too. For instance:
In 2010, the IRS paid out $4.2 billion in refundable child tax credits to 2.3 million tax filers who were not legally authorized to work in the United States.
That is quite a bit of money right off the bat. What about other expenses?
Anyway, if you had bothered to actually click the link, you would have educated yourself quite a bit, and been spared making the erroneous statement which you did.
Re: Seeking Asylum is not illegal (Score:2)
Donâ(TM)t like it change the laws and treaties we have signed.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a link between immigrants and crime [justfacts.com]. No, it's not as you've often heard about "no link!" - there actually is, but because the data says small to "we don't know how much, but it is more", the media trumpeted it as "there isn't any because it's not definitive".
Were you trying to get to a point? Unless we have a DNA test to prove that someone is trafficking drugs, it really doesn't matter. It's not to do with them crossing the border, it has to do with their occupation.
This regulation/"Trump terror rule" was in effect since 2005 [latimes.com]. Conveniently, President Obama suspended the rule because it was "too expensive". Even canceled fingerprinting.
The classic "If Obama did it too, then it must be OK with everyone" trope. Not everything Obama did was good. And if these testings equate to the person being considered a potential criminal, it violates human rights one or more treaties. Again, other countries doing it doesn't make it OK for u
Re: (Score:3)
I know when I enter most 1st and 2nd world countries, they collect fingerprints and photographs of my face.
No they don't. Stop lying. I've been through six countries in Europe and not one of them ever collected my fingerprints. Nor did any of them collect any mugshot-style photographs of my face. They captured my face on airport security cameras that capture everyone, but that's it. Fingerprinting is not common in the developed world, let alone DNA collection, which also never happened.
I'm actually all for putting children in cages, (Score:2)
Land of the free (Score:3)
Did you expect a sarcastic comment after reading the title of my post? You'd be disappointed!
This particular eurotrash (moi) is confused. What I am confused about is how can anyone berate US for not being a free country in this discussion. Let me tell you how I became an economic emigrant in Western Europe.
In order to enter NL in the year 2001 I needed:
- work contract for minimum of three years
- invitation from the employer which is send for consideration in the immigration office.
- eventually a visa.
Upon arrival in NL you have 7 days to report to the immigration office and show:
- the work contract, signed by all parties
- relevant diploma's translated and verified by attorney
- birth certificate translated and verified
- medical insurance
- bank account
- registered (in the city hall) permanent address
Officially no one can exists in NL without the above. To me the tales of US citizen living without a bank account or medical insurance or an address are shocking. In a good way. Failing any of the above you are sent home and must start the procedure again. I had one letter mistake in the translation of my birth certificate and it took 3 officials from the University to call so that I am given 7 more days to obtain the proper one (so my parents had to spend quite some money to arrange it quick and send it via DHL).
Then, on the 3rd year of uninterrupted employment (1 day without a job and the counter is reset) you get residence permit which allows you to apply freely for work. If you manage to secure 5 years of uninterrupted employment you get permanent residence permit and from that moment on you are as good as being Dutch. Most PhD's cannot get a job on the next day after the PhD ends. So what we did is pair with partner that has an income, who can then attest to the authorities that he/she will support you while you look for the next contract. If you don't have such person, you go home.
How can anyone complain about freedom when you don't even have voter ID is beyond me. And some of the critics in the tread are Europeans, even Brits! Brits deriding the US for freedom.....WOW, just WOW!
In NL you public transport card has a picture of you, is connected to your bank account and it has your BSN number (unique ID for every citizen) on it! On the bloody public transport card. You have anonymous cards but guess what - you can't get the subscription deals on those. You want the best deal - picture, BSN number and bank account, please!
Everyone of us is under constant surveillance on every possible level - border control, driving, public transport, financial transactions, place of residence, property and wealth, place of work, medical history and so on....few years ago I tried riding a bike through A'dam while wearing mountaineers hoodie that closes the whole face leaving slits for the eyes. In 3 minutes I was stopped by the police. They did not want to hear that I would of course remove it if I enter anything else than my home. No. 4 weeks ago the police checked me while I was waiting the barber to open for a haircut on a Sunday. The residents called the police because I had a hoodie on and was "looking at the parked cars". In NL the police can give you trouble if you carry long screwdriver for your bike because it is a "weapon". No shit! The list is endless...
Oh yhea, fingerprints....when I get new passport in my country (EU), when I get the renewed permit for NL, when traveling to US, Russia, China....there can be more I do not know...there was a discussion above about fingerprinting travelers to EU - yes you get that too, sorry!
If US is a tyranny then Europe is a fascist hellhole!
P.S> I never had any issues with jumping through all the hoops of the immigration process. Their country, their rules. Now I am told that I am here because of white male privileged and we should wave any requirement for economic migrants (these are not asylum seekers) because their skin color makes them better humans than my skin color. Fuck you!
Re:Biometric data never have been a good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nazi Germany closed their borders to keep people from leaving. I don't remember reading about the millions trying desperately to sneak INTO Nazi Germany. How can you not see the difference?
I want everyone to have a pony too. There just aren't enough ponies for everyone. Our social services are stretched to their limits providing for citizens. How many have you taken into your home?
Re:Biometric data never have been a good idea. (Score:4, Informative)
We haven't closed the borders. The current immigrant population is 44 million. An all time high. You are continually being shown as an idiot on here. You should just stop now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, China is the rising fascist ethno-state.
And Germany would say - "No, Italy."
Or "No, Japan"
There can be more than one.
You have a faulty definition and distorted sense of reality if you think the US can compare to the evils of the Chinese government.
This isn't a competition. Whataboutism isn't going to excuse the US.
But the US trying to have a border is what grinds your gears.
No, violating international law on asylum grinds them, though.