Serious How much more can America stomach?

Kanzler · Oct 3, 2019

EnglishALT said:
If you want I can dig up the articles in the thread, but yes it is a fairly large issue. The use of a database I believe from reading the article is to have it crosschecked with repeat criminal offenders who are attempting to get back into the country as well.

Yeah I'd like for digging. It's the first time I've heard of such a thing and while I'm sure it happens, it sounds like it's blown out of proportion to my Canadian mind. People will always try to game the system no matter what but you have to consider how often it happens and whether or not that justifies subjecting everybody to the same treatment that's designed to sniff out a few bad actors. I'm sure you wouldn't want to ban guns given your political background but it's the same kind of argument.

EnglishALT said:
The high recidivism rate of those deported, along with the current trend to buy children seems to show a clear risk in letting people in that have not been properly established as to who they are and who they belong to. Mind you as a asylum seeker their information is going to be in a database, their picture, finger prints, name, all information given that they filled out, information provided by their home, etc etc, is going to be in a database, how is DNA any different?

Would you be comfortable with the government taking your DNA and storing that in a database somewhere indefinitely? I wouldn't... It's a bit of a lax attitude towards privacy to just say "how is DNA any different". I thought Americans appreciate small governments that kept their noses out of people's business.

EnglishALT said:
Also and this is the most important point of all, these people are asking to enter the US, many times from some of the most dangerous countries in the world with very little information about their past history. How should they expect any amount of privacy when the Government is going to do everything possible to establish the identities of these people?

Being from a dangerous country doesn't make you a dangerous person. From my perspective the US is a pretty dangerous country considering its wealth, does that make Americans dangerous people? No! And everyone should expect some level of privacy... I think it's pretty inhumane to have the starting point as expecting no privacy. It's natural to think of your personal privacy as part of your basic dignity as a human being, and I would need a strong reason to consider taking that away. I don't know if you're conservative or not - you seem to be coming from a conservative point of view with regards to immigration - but conservatives used to care about that sort of thing. Seems a little odd to me how things have changed.

EnglishALT said:
And lets say they are subsequently refused asylum, and deported, five months later they are caught trying to cross the border again and claim asylum, what is the problem with having a profiling system in place for all of those who attempt to gain asylum or enter the country illegally?

I don't think illegally seeking asylum is a crime worth profiling someone for. For me it's a bit of a victimless crime, like public drunkeness. Like if you haven't done anything else other than seek asylum illegally, what have you actually done? Who have you hurt?

EnglishALT said:
I would say keep a national database for as long as the person remains alive, I cannot see the difference between this, and all the other checks we maintain on people who enter the country claiming asylum. How is having a DNA database any different than having a database with a person's picture in it, or fingerprints?

I don't believe in the government collecting information it doesn't need for a purpose that doesn't deserve its collection. How is a perpetual DNA database going to add value when you already have a person's picture or fingerprint?

EnglishALT · Oct 3, 2019

Kanzler said:
Yeah I'd like for digging. It's the first time I've heard of such a thing and while I'm sure it happens, it sounds like it's blown out of proportion to my Canadian mind. People will always try to game the system no matter what but you have to consider how often it happens and whether or not that justifies subjecting everybody to the same treatment that's designed to sniff out a few bad actors. I'm sure you wouldn't want to ban guns given your political background but it's the same kind of argument.

Here you go.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=10049076#post10049076

Also I do not see how the DNA check = ban guns, considering that gun licenses go through background checks and other invasive procedures which are perfectly fine.

Kanzler said:
Would you be comfortable with the government taking your DNA and storing that in a database somewhere indefinitely? I wouldn't... It's a bit of a lax attitude towards privacy to just say "how is DNA any different". I thought Americans appreciate small governments that kept their noses out of people's business.

Would I be comfortable? Sure I wouldn't mind, I assume my photo and information is already in a database based on having a US drivers license.

Also lets cut the cheap strawman digs of "I thought Americans appreciate" and "My understanding is that it's not very American" it adds nothing to the topic and is getting insulting.

Kanzler said:
Being from a dangerous country doesn't make you a dangerous person. From my perspective the US is a pretty dangerous country considering its wealth, does that make Americans dangerous people? No! And everyone should expect some level of privacy... I think it's pretty inhumane to have the starting point as expecting no privacy. It's natural to think of your personal privacy as part of your basic dignity as a human being, and I would need a strong reason to consider taking that away. I don't know if you're conservative or not - you seem to be coming from a conservative point of view with regards to immigration - but conservatives used to care about that sort of thing. Seems a little odd to me how things have changed.

Considering the migrant is being asked to enter the country, they should have NO expectation of privacy, it is the Government's job to protect their citizens, and to make sure those that they are allowing in are safe people that will not hurt their citizens. As such one would expect the Government to take all measures necessary to make sure that the people they are letting in are who they say and that they are safe.

The expectation of privacy ends when a person applies to enter a foreign country, and that holds true for practically every country on this planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...and-ancestry-sites-to-check-migrants-identity

Kanzler said:
I don't think illegally seeking asylum is a crime worth profiling someone for. For me it's a bit of a victimless crime, like public drunkeness. Like if you haven't done anything else other than seek asylum illegally, what have you actually done? Who have you hurt?

Such a thing helps stream line the process, if you can easily identify someone who has been through the system then you do not need to have them wait 3 to 5 years for another asylum hearing.

Kanzler said:
I don't believe in the government collecting information it doesn't need for a purpose that doesn't deserve its collection. How is a perpetual DNA database going to add value when you already have a person's picture or fingerprint?

That is a good question, off the top of my head it allows for a quicker search, it can identify people if they have burned off their finger prints or altered their face, like in Canada it can be used to properly identify what country they came from, etc etc etc.

Kanzler · Oct 3, 2019

EnglishALT said:
Here you go.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=10049076#post10049076

Also I do not see how the DNA check = ban guns, considering that gun licenses go through background checks and other invasive procedures which are perfectly fine.

The idea is that you think the processes in place to provide gun safety are sufficient and that banning guns in the name of preventing the few bad actors from commiting heinous crimes would be a step too far, and that essentially the argument I'm making for DNA checks - that they go too far for the amount of value they provide in the name of protecting the country from a few bad actors that certainly are not representative of the asylum population.

EnglishALT said:
Would I be comfortable? Sure I wouldn't mind, I assume my photo and information is already in a database based on having a US drivers license.

Also lets cut the cheap strawman digs of "I thought Americans appreciate" and "My understanding is that it's not very American" it adds nothing to the topic and is getting insulting.

You might feel that way, I won't insult you by apologizing. I'm not American, and to be honest my understanding of American and what it means to be American was formed around 2008-2012 I would say, and politics was certainly different then... Like it's a legit observation I have. I don't mean to insult, but it really feels as though what people call "conservative" values have changed. That's just what I see and it's genuinely shocking to me, as "conservative" means well, conserving as in not changing much. This kind of stuff makes me feel conservative haha, and that wouldn't be a fully accurate description of my views. I just have to call it out as I see it, I mean no offence.

EnglishALT said:
That is a good question, off the top of my head it allows for a quicker search, it can identify people if they have burned off their finger prints or altered their face, like in Canada it can be used to properly identify what country they came from, etc etc etc.

How many people are out there burning their fingerprints or their faces such that you need the DNA from every person that crosses the border? And wouldn't be matching DNA just be extra work for the 99.9% of people out there for which ID and other things that already exist would work? It's just extra bureaucracy and resources and training and work for border security people who are already overtaxed as it is. Maybe we can solve unemployment by just giving all these people a job on the border. Sorry that my "conservatism" is leaking, but it's just not an effective use of government resources. This is a surprising amount of faith in government's ability to gather information responsibly and use it effectively.

EnglishALT said:
Considering the migrant is being asked to enter the country, they should have NO expectation of privacy, it is the Government's job to protect their citizens, and to make sure those that they are allowing in are safe people that will not hurt their citizens. As such one would expect the Government to take all measures necessary to make sure that the people they are letting in are who they say and that they are safe.

The expectation of privacy ends when a person applies to enter a foreign country, and that holds true for practically every country on this planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...and-ancestry-sites-to-check-migrants-identity

I must disagree, every person has a baseline level of privacy that is afforded to them due to their basic human dignity. That privacy can be curtailed but there must be a strong reason for doing so, and any infringement on a person's privacy should be as narrow as possible to solely fulfill that strong reason. The government should only have take enough information for it to do its job. And this is doubly so and fitting for a country such as the United States which has an identity rooted in respecting freedom. Countries can do whatever they want, it's their sovereign right - no one can force them to change outside of war, but it speaks to a country's identity how it chooses to deal with the privacy of those who are citizens and those who aren't. It looks like there's not much detail about how Canada uses DNA testing for that matter, but there seems to be a strong component of consent and limitation of the use of the information with no indication of a perpetual record, all of which are features that are in keeping with respecting privacy and responsibly using information.

I think this exchange here with the last paragraph is a summary of where our differences lie. We're not arguing what America can/can't do, we're arguing what it should/shouldn't do based on what we think its values are. We have differences in what we think the appropriate scope and powers of government should be, and by extension differences in the faith of government to do its job with the resources it has, as well as the degree of difference in the rights that citizens and non-citizens deserve. Unfortunately, I cannot make an argument here without basing it on what I think America is about, and as long as we have differences regarding that, I will inevitably criticize your interpretation of "Americaness".

EnglishALT · Oct 3, 2019

Kanzler said:
The idea is that you think the processes in place to provide gun safety are sufficient and that banning guns in the name of preventing the few bad actors from commiting heinous crimes would be a step too far, and that essentially the argument I'm making for DNA checks - that they go too far for the amount of value they provide in the name of protecting the country from a few bad actors that certainly are not representative of the asylum population.

I am sorry but I do not see that as a proper comparison, a better one would be to ban all immigrants to prevent a few bad actors, would be the same as banning guns to prevent a few bad actors. Having a system in place to check and identify immigrants is not banning them, but just making sure those who should not be let in, do not get in, similarly to a background check on a gun.

Kanzler said:
How many people are out there burning their fingerprints or their faces such that you need the DNA from every person that crosses the border? And wouldn't be matching DNA just be extra work for the 99.9% of people out there for which ID and other things that already exist would work? It's just extra bureaucracy and resources and training and work for border security people who are already overtaxed as it is. Maybe we can solve unemployment by just giving all these people a job on the border. Sorry that my "conservatism" is leaking, but it's just not an effective use of government resources. This is a surprising amount of faith in government's ability to gather information responsibly and use it effectively.

That is probably true, but then again when you are dealing with middle eastern terrorist organizations, and with south american crime cartels, they will go to radical lengths to get in, not to mention considering the amount of money alot of people pay to sneak across the border, how much is it really to add in some cheap plastic surgery?

Kanzler said:
I must disagree, every person has a baseline level of privacy that is afforded to them due to their basic human dignity. That privacy can be curtailed but there must be a strong reason for doing so, and any infringement on a person's privacy should be as narrow as possible to solely fulfill that strong reason. The government should only have take enough information for it to do its job. And this is doubly so and fitting for a country such as the United States which has an identity rooted in respecting freedom. Countries can do whatever they want, it's their sovereign right - no one can force them to change outside of war, but it speaks to a country's identity how it chooses to deal with the privacy of those who are citizens and those who aren't. It looks like there's not much detail about how Canada uses DNA testing for that matter, but there seems to be a strong component of consent and limitation of the use of the information with no indication of a perpetual record, all of which are features that are in keeping with respecting privacy and responsibly using information.

Wouldn't the security of it's citizens from people who could have a criminal history and wish to do them harm be considered a "strong reason"? The news is constantly peppered with stories of illegal aliens who either kill some one with a DUI, have engaged in raping a person or persons, or done various other horrible things. People crossing the borders do not magically obey all the laws, nor are they all here for peaceful purposes, as such it is the government's responsibility to do everything in it's power to make sure that the bad ones are kept out.

Kanzler · Oct 3, 2019

EnglishALT said:
I am sorry but I do not see that as a proper comparison, a better one would be to ban all immigrants to prevent a few bad actors, would be the same as banning guns to prevent a few bad actors. Having a system in place to check and identify immigrants is not banning them, but just making sure those who should not be let in, do not get in, similarly to a background check on a gun.

That's just not my point at all. I'm not going to repeat that again after this - cost vs. benefit.

EnglishALT said:
That is probably true, but then again when you are dealing with middle eastern terrorist organizations, and with south american crime cartels, they will go to radical lengths to get in, not to mention considering the amount of money alot of people pay to sneak across the border, how much is it really to add in some cheap plastic surgery?

I don't know if you are joking or not. If these people are poor and in straits dire enough that they're going to make the trek all the way to the southern border at great personal risk with a high risk of being detained or deported once they get there, are they really going to add in some "cheap" plastic surgery to the point that we're going to need DNA tests on everybody to overcome that? There's an element of realism to this discussion that you have to appreciate or else we'll just talk about fanciful hypotheticals and waste each others' time.

EnglishALT said:
Wouldn't the security of it's citizens from people who could have a criminal history and wish to do them harm be considered a "strong reason"? The news is constantly peppered with stories of illegal aliens who either kill some one with a DUI, have engaged in raping a person or persons, or done various other horrible things. People crossing the borders do not magically obey all the laws, nor are they all here for peaceful purposes, as such it is the government's responsibility to do everything in it's power to make sure that the bad ones are kept out.

Yes, but what about asylum seekers make them about to kill someone with a DUI, raping people or doing other horrible things? Last time I checked, Americans do that too! Would you feel better if you had some crime committed upon you by, no, not even a Green Card, a birth-right American? Are crimes by asylum seekers somehow worse than crimes committed by Americans? You would need to demonstrate that asylum seekers are dangerous, and enough of them so dangerous that you require a standard of information from them that is that much greater than everyone else. It simply doesn't seem proportional to treat them so differently otherwise. How many asylum seekers are out there, and how many Americans in your country committing the same crimes? You might as well throw the money you spend on DNA testing - which again is flawed and we haven't really addressed that - on policing your own people more if you want the effect of reducing more crime - not that I propose that of course.

EnglishALT · Oct 4, 2019

Kanzler said:
I don't know if you are joking or not. If these people are poor and in straits dire enough that they're going to make the trek all the way to the southern border at great personal risk with a high risk of being detained or deported once they get there, are they really going to add in some "cheap" plastic surgery to the point that we're going to need DNA tests on everybody to overcome that? There's an element of realism to this discussion that you have to appreciate or else we'll just talk about fanciful hypotheticals and waste each others' time.

I think this is where we are getting into our point of disagreement, most, if not the vast majority of these people are poor and in dire straits, no doubt. However, and this is where I think we disagree, is that there are some, who come that have less than noble means, and are using the lack of security on the border as a easier way to get in.

Can we not agree, at least that not every single migrant that comes, could have good intentions?

Kanzler said:
Yes, but what about asylum seekers make them about to kill someone with a DUI, raping people or doing other horrible things? Last time I checked, Americans do that too! Would you feel better if you had some crime committed upon you by, no, not even a Green Card, a birth-right American? Are crimes by asylum seekers somehow worse than crimes committed by Americans? You would need to demonstrate that asylum seekers are dangerous, and enough of them so dangerous that you require a standard of information from them that is that much greater than everyone else. It simply doesn't seem proportional to treat them so differently otherwise. How many asylum seekers are out there, and how many Americans in your country committing the same crimes? You might as well throw the money you spend on DNA testing - which again is flawed and we haven't really addressed that - on policing your own people more if you want the effect of reducing more crime - not that I propose that of course.

I would say actually yes it is worse, as a normal American is in the country, he or she is born there, and they committing a crime is part of having a society of humans, there is nothing that can change it. When it comes to asylum seekers, the Government has a choice, should they let them in, or not. If the Government lets someone in who goes on and rapes a person, then the question then becomes why did the Government let that person in and the first place? When accepting a person for asylum, the Government must always think of the good of their own people first, will this person contribute to the good or not? They also must use every means necessary to make sure that person will not hurt others.

You talked before about how DNA testing is a matter of privacy, however being able to live outside of the country of your birth is a privilege, not a right. If your right to privacy matters more to you than the privilege to live in that country, then you can always return home.

And of course I say that as a person who has lived in a foreign country for multiple years now, and knows that I could be deported at any time if I do not comply with what ever rules or laws that country wishes to impose on me.

Kanzler · Oct 4, 2019

EnglishALT said:
I think this is where we are getting into our point of disagreement, most, if not the vast majority of these people are poor and in dire straits, no doubt. However, and this is where I think we disagree, is that there are some, who come that have less than noble means, and are using the lack of security on the border as a easier way to get in.

Can we not agree, at least that not every single migrant that comes, could have good intentions?

How could I have possibly suggested that not even one migrant could have bad intentions. I acknowledge that in my last post. My point is that unless you demonstrate that asylum seekers somehow are more dangerous than your typical American as a group, because yes, there are criminals on both sides, you don't have justification to burden them with a standard of privacy so different from a citizen. Especially since the whole point of seeking asylum is ... ok onto the next passage.

EnglishALT said:
You talked before about how DNA testing is a matter of privacy, however being able to live outside of the country of your birth is a privilege, not a right. If your right to privacy matters more to you than the privilege to live in that country, then you can always return home.

These are asylum seekers we're talking about: "An asylum seeker (also rarely called an asylee applicant) is a person who flees their home country, enters another country and applies for asylum, i.e. the right to international protection, in this other country. An asylum seeker is a type of migrant and may be a refugee, a displaced person, but not an economic migrant." These are people seeking protection against the face of danger. I would not exactly describe that as a privilege. They are not just picking and choosing. Based on everything you've said so far, I don't think you understand who these people are, and why they are coming to your borders.

EnglishALT · Oct 4, 2019

Kanzler said:
How could I have possibly suggested that not even one migrant could have bad intentions. I acknowledge that in my last post. My point is that unless you demonstrate that asylum seekers somehow are more dangerous than your typical American as a group, because yes, there are criminals on both sides, you don't have justification to burden them with a standard of privacy so different from a citizen. Especially since the whole point of seeking asylum is ... ok onto the next passage.

Umm no...

Any society is going to have dangerous people, that we agree upon. The whole thing with allowing people in to the country, be it for asylum, work, or anything else, is if this person is going to harm our society. Again what you are missing is that it is the government's job to protect it's citizenry! The government has to decide if these people will harm it's citizens, the people its sworn to protect, and if they believe that any one person may pose a danger, then they have an obligation to refuse asylum.

That is just basic civics.

If the citizenry believes they have a government that no longer has an interest in protecting them, then you have cause for revolution.

Kanzler said:
These are asylum seekers we're talking about: "An asylum seeker (also rarely called an asylee applicant) is a person who flees their home country, enters another country and applies for asylum, i.e. the right to international protection, in this other country. An asylum seeker is a type of migrant and may be a refugee, a displaced person, but not an economic migrant." These are people seeking protection against the face of danger. I would not exactly describe that as a privilege. They are not just picking and choosing. Based on everything you've said so far, I don't think you understand who these people are, and why they are coming to your borders.

Oh I understand, they also in large part are economic migrants, coming for jobs, thus not worthy of asylum. I also know that Mexico has also offered them asylum, thus providing them with a country that allows them to get a way from the danger they faced. These people have largely refused that offer, thus again showing they are picking and choosing where to place their asylum application.

gimmepie · Oct 5, 2019

Okay, but here's a thing that nobody seems to be talking about re: DNA samples. The labs responsible for DNA profiling and the like are already supremely understaffed, underfunded and overworked, to the point that there's years of backlog pertaining to actual serious crimes that has not been processed yet and is at risk of degradation.

Doesn't it seem a lot more prudent to invest the money that would need to go into this border program into dealing with this existing problem for the time being, since there's hundred of confirmed dangerous people going about their business still because of that backlog, or getting away with crimes because there is no DNA evidence processed?

I'm unsure of exactly how I feel on this particular issue. I can understand the logic behind the process, it technically causes no harm to those who have their DNA taken and could prevent victimisation of minors and other crimes. On the other hand though, there's potential here for abuse in the future as genetic science is still very young and is developing quite rapidly. What is harmless now could potentially become a lot less so in the near future, even ignoring potential invasions of personal privacy.

Given that there is even multiple lines of debate and concern here, it just seems to me that it would be more prudent to use those funds to address an existing DNA problem instead.

Kanzler · Oct 5, 2019

gimmepie said:
I'm unsure of exactly how I feel on this particular issue. I can understand the logic behind the process, it technically causes no harm to those who have their DNA taken and could prevent victimisation of minors and other crimes. On the other hand though, there's potential here for abuse in the future as genetic science is still very young and is developing quite rapidly. What is harmless now could potentially become a lot less so in the near future, even ignoring potential invasions of personal privacy.

I cannot emphasize this point enough. In light of the permeation of social media in our lives, the collection of increasing volume of personal data by big businesses, and surveillence from the government, I don't think we need to provide one more piece of our personal data that we don't even fully understand at this point to a government that cannot be trusted to dispose of that information appropriately. I would not put asylum seekers under a different standard just because they're asylum seekers.