Serious How much more can America stomach?

[Corrin]

I'd let others come over too, if you wish to move to and be a good citizen of another country, how come you can't? What's so wrong with people moving between countries? You know most of Europe has lax borders right? "Illegal" shouldn't be a thing, no person is "illegal" if you can fly to a country you want to live in all the power to you as well.
But you seem set in your ways so I won't waste my time further with this, I didn't mention people being able to jump ahead you just assumed it so you could fault my argument and not pay attention to the fact that it is wrong to treat people how these people are being treated.

 

[EnglishALT]

I'd let others come over too, if you wish to move to and be a good citizen of another country, how come you can't? What's so wrong with people moving between countries? You know most of Europe has lax borders right? "Illegal" shouldn't be a thing, no person is "illegal" if you can fly to a country you want to live in all the power to you as well.
But you seem set in your ways so I won't waste my time further with this, I didn't mention people being able to jump ahead you just assumed it so you could fault my argument and not pay attention to the fact that it is wrong to treat people how these people are being treated.

Well before you go then let me ask, if you believe anyone should come then do you think there should be a limit? One million per year? Ten million? Infinite? Even Europe has put a cap on its number even with its lax borders, and if you want we can discuss the dangers that has brought to Europe. However again I ask should a country put a cap on the number of people it let's in? Or should it just let everyone in and let the country fall apart as people cannot find jobs and have to overburden the welfare system to the point it crumbles?

 

[Corrin]

The core issue is why do people wish to immigrate? Well, it's because:
1. Their own country is war torn, why is this so? Many middle eastern countries are only in shambles because of foreign forces going there and tearing shit up just for oil.
2. The country is poor. In my opinion no country should be poor, and they don't HAVE to be, like 100 people use up 50% of the earths resources, isn't that insane? Million and billionaires don't need all that money while countless people suffer.
3. The country is dangerous, this is linked back to poverty, if the worlds resources weren't hoarded by the mega rich and everyone had a fair share and poverty was a thing of the past you'd find people wouldn't be robbing, killing, etc because they'd be perfectly happy.
And the whole "they earned" shit is a thing of the distant past, most mega wealthy people inherited it or had rich parents, and like I said they don't need all that money, they don't need yachts, they don't need gold toilets. The rich live on the backs of the countless they exploit and this immoral and wrong.

 

[EnglishALT]

The core issue is why do people wish to immigrate? Well, it's because:
1. Their own country is war torn, why is this so? Many middle eastern countries are only in shambles because of foreign forces going there and tearing muk up just for oil.
2. The country is poor. In my opinion no country should be poor, and they don't HAVE to be, like 100 people use up 50% of the earths resources, isn't that insane? Million and billionaires don't need all that money while countless people suffer.
3. The country is dangerous, this is linked back to poverty, if the worlds resources weren't hoarded by the mega rich and everyone had a fair share and poverty was a thing of the past you'd find people wouldn't be robbing, killing, etc because they'd be perfectly happy.
And the whole "they earned" muk is a thing of the distant past, most mega wealthy people inherited it or had rich parents, and like I said they don't need all that money, they don't need yachts, they don't need gold toilets. The rich live on the backs of the countless they exploit and this immoral and wrong.

You are deflecting from the question, we can go into how to fix the world's problems and how much each country should give in aid, however I will again ask what would you put a cap on immigration? Because no matter what there are going to be millions if not billions that will want to move to first world countries, and no country on this planet can absorb that many people.

 

[Nah]

It's not really deflecting imo. If you make it so people don't have much reason to immigrate to other countries, a cap is not something worth thinking about, as you'll never have to worry about taking in more people than you can handle.

What is deflection however is the constant mentioning of trivial things like immigration caps and "it's not fair to people who have to cross an ocean!" and inflexible adherence to the law over important things like the poor treatment of other human beings simply coming here to escape the awful conditions of their homelands, with said awful conditions caused in significant part by the wealthy elite of the West.

 

[Corrin]

You are deflecting from the question, we can go into how to fix the world's problems and how much each country should give in aid, however I will again ask what would you put a cap on immigration? Because no matter what there are going to be millions if not billions that will want to move to first world countries, and no country on this planet can absorb that many people.

Literally how am I deflecting there shouldn't be third world whatever the fuck countries in the first place which has everything to do with immigration because with a more equal spread of wealth in every country there wouldn't be a need to immigrate. Please connect the dots here you just don't want to admit that I am in the right.

 

[EnglishALT]

It's not really deflecting imo. If you make it so people don't have much reason to immigrate to other countries, a cap is not something worth thinking about, as you'll never have to worry about taking in more people than you can handle.

We can go into the discussion on how it is impossible to do that, but even if the western countries were to attempt something like that it would still require decades of change, in the meantime there would be millions upon millions who would refuse to wait for their countries to change and want to immigrate immediately.

What is deflection however is the constant mentioning of trivial things like immigration caps and "it's not fair to people who have to cross an ocean!" and inflexible adherence to the law over important things like the poor treatment of other human beings simply coming here to escape the awful conditions of their homelands, with said awful conditions caused in significant part by the wealthy elite of the West.

The discussion was not about that, it was about helping illegals obtain citizenship over those who have to wait for citizenship.

Literally how am I deflecting there shouldn't be third world whatever the psyduck countries in the first place which has everything to do with immigration because with a more equal spread of wealth in every country there wouldn't be a need to immigrate. Please connect the dots here you just don't want to admit that I am in the right.

So can you please answer it then, but let's say we do this magical change, something that would take decades, what should the cap be in the meantime, or should we force people to stay in their countries while said change is happening.

Now to answer what you proposed let's say we did "spread the wealth" around, there are numerous countries that are ruled by drug lords and criminal organizations, do you plan to use the military to overthrow those drug lords?

In Africa we see numerous countries ruled by dictators and warlords that take western aid and money and use it to prop themselves up with a lavish lifestyle do you plan to use the military to overthrow them?

There are countries that are very resource poor, do you plan to constantly provide those countries aid to support a first world lifestyle?

You blame the west on wars in the Middle East, however some of the greatest tension in the Middle East is Shia vs Sunni, ala Saudi Arabia vs Iran, do you plan to use the military to constantly keep those two apart? The same could be said for Pakistan and India, another flash point that has nothing to do with the west.

 

[Ivysaur]

The same could be said for Pakistan and India, another flash point that has nothing to do with the west.

Oh boy have you heard of Louis Mountbatten. Because if there is something the West is totally responsible for is the cold war between Pakistan and India, two countries that did not even exist until a random British Earl was dispatched to India with a map and told to draw borders for two countries in a few days, without the slightest clue of how it looked on the ground or whether there even was apetite for partition. Please do read the history of the Partition of India and then tell me again the West has nothing to do with it.

 

[EnglishALT]

Oh boy have you heard of Louis Mountbatten. Because if there is something the West is totally responsible for is the cold war between Pakistan and India, two countries that did not even exist until a random British Earl was dispatched to India with a map and told to draw borders for two countries in a few days, without the slightest clue of how it looked on the ground or whether there even was apetite for partition. Please do read the history of the Partition of India and then tell me again the West has nothing to do with it.

Alright fair enough, although I would say that 71 years later the problems the two nations face have little to do with the west and mostly with their current inability to deal with radical jihadism in their own borders, the debacle over Kashmiri, and increased military support from China.

 

[Ivysaur]

Alright fair enough, although I would say that 71 years later the problems the two nations face have little to do with the west and mostly with their current inability to deal with radical jihadism in their own borders, the debacle over Kashmiri, and increased military support from China.

Except the Kashmir issue was created by Earl Mountbatten himself by drawing a randomly drunken line crossing through a 50-50 territory, Jihadism is exacerbated by Pakistan being created as a Muslim-only state as opposed to the multicultural country India once was -aided by the British "Divide the religions and rule" policy that kept them in power for two centuries- and the Chinese are drawn to, and concerned by, the fact that their two neighbouring countries are in a permanent state of war, with nukes on a hair trigger, over the issue of Kashmir.

So yes, literally everything about the India-Pakistan problem was created by the West, by the United Kingdom to be precise. Everything you see right now is the effects of the decision of a British dude, just amplified by 70 years of anger because of what he did.

 

[EnglishALT]

Except the Kashmir issue was created by Earl Mountbatten himself by drawing a randomly drunken line crossing through a 50-50 territory, Jihadism is exacerbated by Pakistan being created as a Muslim-only state as opposed to the multicultural country India once was -aided by the British "Divide the religions and rule" policy that kept them in power for two centuries- and the Chinese are drawn to, and concerned by, the fact that their two neighbouring countries are in a permanent state of war, with nukes on a hair trigger, over the issue of Kashmir.

So yes, literally everything about the India-Pakistan problem was created by the West, by the United Kingdom to be precise. Everything you see right now is the effects of the decision of a British dude, just amplified by 70 years of anger because of what he did.

You neglect to mention that Pakistan was created because a Muslim minority feared losing to a Hindu majority and was seeking their own country.

https://www.hoover.org/research/islam-and-early-history-pakistan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/jinnah_mohammad_ali.shtml

You also neglect the 1937 elections that saw the Muslims League do poorly and resulted to being largely shut out of the government, fueling discontent and driving the need for a separate country.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mohammed-Ali-Jinnah

 

[Her]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49425624

How's that 'they're not concentration camps' argument going, for those that still rally against the idea? You still feel comfortable, secure? Enjoying the taste of boot?

 

[EnglishALT]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49425624

How's that 'they're not concentration camps' argument going, for those that still rally against the idea? You still feel comfortable, secure? Enjoying the taste of boot?

As noted before those being released are not showing up for their hearings, thus holding them ( or making them wait in Mexico if they do not illegally cross the border ) is the only way to make sure they do not disappear into the US, before pleading their case for asylum. How does this change anything by the way in your argument? If anything all it does is discourage the purchasing of children to get through.

 

[Ivysaur]

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/22/20827...66605472&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...awaits-powells-jackson-hole-speech-2019-08-23

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164914610836783104

Seriously, this man is mentally unstable. I don't know what kind of illness he suffers from (or maybe he's just blind), but this week he was totally deranged and every three hours he's been doing something that would have sent Republicans into asking for a coup to remove Obama had he done one single of these things. "I hereby order companies to leave China and move production to the US", says the candidate of the party that loves free enterprise and warns against socialists telling companies what to do or nationalising them.

And these things are not even productive for him. He's pushing the US into an economic crash, which is very much what he doesn't need by next year.

 

[Her]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/dna-testing-immigrants.html

The Trump administration is moving to begin collecting DNA samples from hundreds of thousands of people booked into federal immigration custody each year for entry into a national criminal database, an immense expansion of the use of technology to enforce the nation's immigration laws.

Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that the Justice Department was developing a federal regulation that would give immigration officers the authority to collect DNA in detention facilities that are holding more than 40,000 people.

The move would constitute a major expansion of the use of a database maintained by the F.B.I., which has been limited mainly to genetic data collected from people who have been arrested, charged or convicted in connection with serious crimes.

Immigrant and privacy advocates said 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. The new rules would allow the government to collect DNA from children, as well as those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry and have not broken the law.

Sign Up for the Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.

SIGN UP
They warned that United States citizens, who are sometimes accidentally booked into immigration custody, could also be forced to hand over their private genetic information.

"That kind of mass collection alters the purpose of DNA collection from one of criminal investigation basically to population surveillance, which is basically contrary to our basic notions of a free, trusting, autonomous society," said Vera Eidelman, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

She said that because genetic material carries strong family connections, the data collection would have implications not only for those in immigration custody but also their family members who might be United States citizens, or have legal residence.

Homeland security officials, in a call with reporters on Wednesday, said the new initiative was permitted under the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. Up until now, immigrant detainees have been exempt from the law, they said, because of an agreement between Eric H. Holder Jr. and Janet Napolitano, who served as attorney general and homeland security secretary, respectively, under President Barack Obama.

The officials said the proposed rule was inspired partly by a pilot program conducted this summer along the southwestern border, in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents used rapid DNA sampling technology to identify "fraudulent family units" — adults who were using children disguised as their own to exploit special protections for families with immigrant children.

Editors' Picks

Me and My Whistle-Blower

Ming, the Bengal Tiger Raised in a Harlem Apartment, Has Died

What Does Having a Boyfriend Have to Do With Sleep?
The new program would differ from the pilot in that it would provide a comprehensive DNA profile of individuals who are tested, as opposed to the more narrow test that was used only to determine parentage. And unlike the testing under the pilot program, the results would be shared with other law enforcement agencies.

The move is part of a wider Trump administration move to criminalize unauthorized border crossings, even in some cases when people have complied with federal immigration laws, such as presenting themselves at legal ports of entry into the United States to seek asylum.

Regarding that group, which is considered protected under federal asylum law, a senior D.H.S. official who spoke with reporters on condition of anonymity, said, "There is a criminal aspect to that population."

Crossing the border without documents and attempting to elude border authorities is a misdemeanor for first offenders.

After the DNA samples are taken, under the forthcoming regulation, they would be entered into the F.B.I.'s highly regulated national DNA database. Known as CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System is used by state and law enforcement authorities to help identify criminal suspects. It is advertised on the bureau's website as a "tool for linking violent crimes."

In supplying the F.B.I. and other law enforcement with the DNA of immigration detainees, federal authorities are jumping into an ethical debate about the use of DNA in criminal investigations. While such sampling has been crucial in securing thousands of prosecutions over the past several decades, it has also generated controversy because of the potential for abuse.

Trump administration officials did not provide a timeline for the rollout of the regulation but said that a working group was meeting weekly to introduce it as soon as possible.

what can even be said at this stage that hasn't been said already

 

[EnglishALT]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/dna-testing-immigrants.html


what can even be said at this stage that hasn't been said already

You mind explaining what exactly is the problem here?

 

[Kanzler]

You mind explaining what exactly is the problem here?

It's a highly suspect invasion of privacy. You have to ask yourself how the DNA will be used. You have to ask yourself what means they will have to define a match, as people who are related will have similar DNA, and even people who aren't related might be mistakenly identified. Even putting aside concerns of privacy, you have to ask yourself what the science is capable of. And if there are major holes in the technology, then why bother subject a whole group of people to invasive testing against their consent? If you are okay with that, then that suggests some contempt you might have regarding their dignity.

If you don't care about that, then you must consider that such a policy may violate the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't know how you feel about authoritarian countries, but it would be very ironic to denounce authoritarian governments worldwide and praise American freedom while supporting such a policy.

 

[EnglishALT]

It's a highly suspect invasion of privacy. You have to ask yourself how the DNA will be used. You have to ask yourself what means they will have to define a match, as people who are related will have similar DNA, and even people who aren't related might be mistakenly identified.

Obviously the first and most obvious reason for this is to determine if those who are claiming to be family, have some definitive proof before they are released into the country with a child who may or may not even be related to them. As you said people who are related will have similar DNA, and thus they can determine if the child they brought along actually belongs to them, or was bought of the street, a problem we have discussed previously in this thread.

Even putting aside concerns of privacy, you have to ask yourself what the science is capable of. And if there are major holes in the technology, then why bother subject a whole group of people to invasive testing against their consent? If you are okay with that, then that suggests some contempt you might have regarding their dignity.

Is it against their consent? If one of the rules to claim asylum is a DNA test then they can either consent to it, or abandon the asylum process. I don't see anywhere in the article where it states they are being held down and forced to take a DNA test.

If you don't care about that, then you must consider that such a policy may violate the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't know how you feel about authoritarian countries, but it would be very ironic to denounce authoritarian governments worldwide and praise American freedom while supporting such a policy.

I did consider the fourth amendment concerns, however the key phrase your missing is "unreasonable searches and seizures" having DNA tests to see if a person is related to with who they claim as a dependent, so that they can enter the country hardly constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, the same goes with a DNA check to see if they are a repeat offender of immigration law, neither sounds like an act of an authoritarian country.

 

[Kanzler]

Obviously the first and most obvious reason for this is to determine if those who are claiming to be family, have some definitive proof before they are released into the country with a child who may or may not even be related to them. As you said people who are related will have similar DNA, and thus they can determine if the child they brought along actually belongs to them, or was bought of the street, a problem we have discussed previously in this thread.

Is this an issue? In that case you would still want to minimize the extent of this information being used - assuming that you are collecting the DNA, you ought to use the information simply to match the parents with the children and not leave a permanent record that persists beyond the purpose that the information is being obtained for. It doesn't mean you create a database that keeps this private information potentially indefinitely with a loose scope for its use. And besides, what is sufficient kinship? What of distant cousins or adopted children?

Is it against their consent? If one of the rules to claim asylum is a DNA test then they can either consent to it, or abandon the asylum process. I don't see anywhere in the article where it states they are being held down and forced to take a DNA test.

Even if you asked for the person's consent, it wouldn't make it right. There must be some kind of risk that you are managing in order to ask for someone to give up their information like that. I don't know what an asylum seeker has done to have them give up their DNA information that an immigrant from a traditional channel has not. You could make the same comparison to an American citizen. Those asylum seekers that become US citizens will always have their DNA information in a database somewhere which means they would never appreciate the privilege to have such information kept private to themselves. I think governments have no business asking for information of this kind from people who have done nothing wrong. What about the asylum seeker requires for you to take their DNA?

I did consider the fourth amendment concerns, however the key phrase your missing is "unreasonable searches and seizures" having DNA tests to see if a person is related to with who they claim as a dependent, so that they can enter the country hardly constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, the same goes with a DNA check to see if they are a repeat offender of immigration law, neither sounds like an act of an authoritarian country.

I don't agree with having DNA testing, but if I did, I would still require that the information only be used for the purpose intended and discarded after. For example, you could take someone's DNA and check it against a criminal database, and once that was cleared the sample and all records of the DNA it should be destroyed. If there is a record remaining it should just be a record that they passed or failed the check.

All of this talk is pointless without discussion of the capabilities and limits of DNA testing and checking, however. It's not a perfect technology, and if you use it on everybody you will inevitably get false positives. And for what purposes would you propose for DNA testing to be used? How long should the information be kept for? My understanding is that it's not very American to take people's information first and ask questions later. Privacy was once upon a time respected in society.

 

[EnglishALT]

Is this an issue? In that case you would still want to minimize the extent of this information being used - assuming that you are collecting the DNA, you ought to use the information simply to match the parents with the children and not leave a permanent record that persists beyond the purpose that the information is being obtained for. It doesn't mean you create a database that keeps this private information potentially indefinitely with a loose scope for its use. And besides, what is sufficient kinship? What of distant cousins or adopted children?

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.

As for kinship, I believe under the Flores Agreement, its based on immediate family, although I am not sure. As for adopted children, again that gets back to buying children illegally, and would probably require the parent to provide proper paperwork from their home country showing the adoption was legal.

Even if you asked for the person's consent, it wouldn't make it right. There must be some kind of risk that you are managing in order to ask for someone to give up their information like that. I don't know what an asylum seeker has done to have them give up their DNA information that an immigrant from a traditional channel has not. You could make the same comparison to an American citizen. Those asylum seekers that become US citizens will always have their DNA information in a database somewhere which means they would never appreciate the privilege to have such information kept private to themselves. I think governments have no business asking for information of this kind from people who have done nothing wrong. What about the asylum seeker requires for you to take their DNA?

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?

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?

I don't agree with having DNA testing, but if I did, I would still require that the information only be used for the purpose intended and discarded after. For example, you could take someone's DNA and check it against a criminal database, and once that was cleared the sample and all records of the DNA it should be destroyed. If there is a record remaining it should just be a record that they passed or failed the check.

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?

All of this talk is pointless without discussion of the capabilities and limits of DNA testing and checking, however. It's not a perfect technology, and if you use it on everybody you will inevitably get false positives. And for what purposes would you propose for DNA testing to be used? How long should the information be kept for? My understanding is that it's not very American to take people's information first and ask questions later. Privacy was once upon a time respected in society.

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?