SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-check-out-any-time-you-like-but-you-can-never-leave-♩♩♬♪♫ dept.
Proposed legislation just passed out of committee has the stated goal, “to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to gain and maintain operational control of the international borders of the United States.”
Down inside the "Secure Our Borders First Act" is a clause which calls for a biometric data exit system, (mentioned briefly here).
From this news item:
The Secure our Borders First Act would require full implementation of a biometric exit data system, which would require persons heading from the U.S. to Canada to not only be stopped and interviewed by Canadian authorities, as they currently are, but also by U.S. authorities, which has never been the case. This would require billions of dollars of plaza expansions on the U.S. side of the border, and new Customs and Border Protection officers to staff these currently-nonexistent booths and gates.
Elsewhere, biometrics were defined as fingerprinting or retina scan.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @05:02AM
...if the back room lobbyists snuck through a debt ceiling increase into this bill
i'm not sure if that would be legal, but it's not like congress follow its own laws anyway
none of them even read the bills
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:13AM
Because it would be better to shut down the government again?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:20AM
What exactly would be all that bad? Sure, there'd be fewer random innocent ^w enemy combatants murdered ^w casualties around the world, but it's my local taxes that pay for most of the good stuff I have access to (roads, utilities, etc.). Plus, with all the money I'd save not propping up failed businesses on Wall Street or the NSA or random war, all that stuff I like would be that much better -- hell, the city could pay _me_ to use the water supply and still have a massive surplus.
So yeah, let the Feds get shut down. I'm not one of the uber-rich the Feds support anyway.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday January 25 2015, @01:28PM
What exactly would be all that bad?
what you aren't realizing is that the federal government is a LOT more than just executive branch and when they shut down the federal government, they shut down all services. need food stamps? sorry, government is closed. this happened to my friend the last time they shut it down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:31PM
Haha. That's funny. Food stamps? Our fine political philosopher here doesn't give a fuck about food stamps. Look at his dipshit answers. He blames the TARP bill on Obama! Just let him be content being scared of the political boogeymen that the TV and radio tells him to be scared about, and let him happily go along and voting for policies that ultimately fuck him over. He probably is blissfully unaware that the Feds subsidize most of the "red" states at the expense of the "blue" states. Those red states get back more money than they pay into with taxes. Ooooh, almost sounds like socialism! Let's cut off money to the Welfare Queen so that she'll stop living off the backs of us hard-working Americans, but when some selfish asshole in Nevada wants to graze his flock for free on Federal land (the land that is supported by us hard-working Americans), lets make a folk hero out of him.
The amazing thing isn't how blindingly ignorant people like this are, the amazing thing is how proud they are of their ignorance. Waive your stupid flag proud, it is a badge of honor for some it seems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @01:02PM
BTW, there are no well-fare Queens, it was a made up story by Regan to sell to stupid people, (aka the poor), just like joe-the-plumber.
Well, Joe existed, but his story was a book of lies.
Both served the same purpose though, to redirect anger about wealth inequality from the rich to the poorest of the poor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @02:51PM
Well, except for forcing thousands or millions of people to be unemployed, shutting down the military, and shutting down many critical functions that people depend on, I suppose it wouldn't be that bad. Though how do you suppose we make sure those employed by the federal government, including contractors and soldiers in all branches, don't starve? "Fuck them!", "Who cares?", or "Not my problem."? Such a predictably selfish response.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:00PM
If all of the tax money sent to the US Federal Government was used locally, those problems wouldn't exist -- how much do you think actually comes back to ordinary citizens from what is sent to DC? 20%? Wall Street robs us up front, and from behind through tax subsidies, and we're supposed to be grateful for the crumbs left. The military industrial complex pays some salaries for massive subsidies of a few at the top, and we're supposed to grip our ankles because we are allowed to get just a tiny bit back. We would all be individually better off, even those on food stamps, if the money sent to the Feds was not, and the programs that benefit regular people were dealt with locally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:13PM
If all the tax money sent to the federal government were used locally, most of the states would be in trouble the same way that the European periphery is in trouble. Federal taxes are a silent redistribution mechanism to shuffle wealth from the few profitable states to the many unprofitable ones, keeping the Union united. Think "Grexit" is an ugly word? Try "Alabamexit." Every time you see some new story about money being funneled to pork projects or NASA being forced to manufacture parts in bizarre locations or agricultural subsidies making no sense, realize that it's why there isn't a raft of economically-motivated secession attempts by states that have no hope of fiscal or structural reform seeking instead to develop independent monetary policies to balance their budgets.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday January 26 2015, @02:14AM
Last time I saw stats, the return from D.C. was about 30%. So out of every three tax dollars that go to D.C., only one dollar comes back to you and your state. So you're not too far off, and given the state of bureaucracy, it'll only get worse.
And yes, I did have the thought that if we just kept those dollars here in my state, we wouldn't *need* any subsidies from D.C. (in fact we'd come out a little ahead).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.