SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Homeland Security’s Intelligence Overreach: Two Cases Illustrate Risks to Civil Society:
Two stories this week show how the Department of Homeland Security is deploying its intelligence apparatus against activists, journalists, and human rights lawyers. While this type of political surveillance rightly raises serious concerns, it is hardly surprising given the immense growth in DHS’s intelligence gathering programs during and since the Obama administration, and the lack of meaningful standards, safeguards, and oversight of their operation.
[...]NBC7 San Diego published a leaked copy of a set of slides titled “San Diego Sector Foreign Operations Branch: Migrant Caravan FY-2019, Suspected Organizers, Coordinators, Instigators and Media,” dated January 9, 2019. The document, which appears under a U.S.-Mexican seal, is essentially a surveillance target list with photographs of 59 people, 40 of whom are identified as U.S. citizens, all of whom seem to have some connection to migrant caravans heading from Central America to the United States. “Alerts” have been placed against the information of 43 people, including 28 Americans. DHS kept dossiers on the targets as well, including one that was shared with NBC 7 on[sic] Nicole Ramos, an attorney with a legal center for migrants and refugees in Tijuana, Mexico.
DHS claims it was tracking people who were in the vicinity of violence near the border in November 2018 and just wanted to talk to them as part of its investigation of those incidents. This justification rings hollow; it is much more plausible that the agency was tagging people based on their perceived involvement with the caravan, not as potential witnesses to any incident of violence.
[...]Far from the southern border, officers of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of DHS in New York City were also keeping tabs on protests. Documents obtained by The Nation via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request included a spreadsheet of public protests, titled “Anti-Trump Protest Spreadsheet 07/31/2018.”
The document covered protests during the two-week period from July 31 to August 17, suggesting that such monitoring may be undertaken on a regular basis. It also showed the number of people who had signed up for the protests on Facebook, indicating that ICE was monitoring social media to follow political movements.
DHS claims it was monitoring leftist activists in New York to provide agents from ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit with “situational awareness” information in case they were traveling through the city “on work or personal time.” Again, the title of the document gives away what is likely the agency’s true intent: the list is not about protests or demonstrations in general, it is focused on “anti-Trump” (and anti-ICE) political activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @04:16PM (26 children)
so then just get rid of the border entirely, and let anyone who wants to come, come in then...
how exactly do you expect that to turn out in the end? (there are over 500 million people in Central and South America who then could just 'walk in' or 'caravan in')
There is nothing wrong with immigration, provided it is based on merit. There are lots of people in the world who would like to come to the USA who can contribute to this country, but because they happen not to be next door and are not able to just 'walk in', they get cut out..
but I guess that is ok, isn't it..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @04:37PM (9 children)
Who (other than you) said anything even remotely close to that?
Did you pick that one up at Straw Men 'R' Us?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @04:55PM (8 children)
It's not a strawman . Right now the border is defacto already open
What do you suggest then? Open or closed? How do you decide who gets to come and 'live and work' then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @05:07PM (7 children)
Yeah [thedailybeast.com], wide open [woub.org].
Wide, wide open [countable.us].
Please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @05:26PM (6 children)
20 million already got through and more come each day (several hundreds to thousands)
Looks pretty open to me..
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @05:34PM (5 children)
How many times must people post the FACTS that the vast majority of illegal immigration is due to overstaying visas after people come in legally. You're probably the type that would view Puerto Ricans as illegal immigrants too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:09PM (4 children)
Here is an estimate from a site tracking "undocumented" who crossed the border (so presumably they are pro illegal immigration, using that loaded "undocumented" word)
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ [factcheck.org]
And even their number is still over 10 million!!
(given it is a pro-illegal article, the real number is probably less than the 25M number bandied by the right, and more than this 10 million figure).
That is still a shitton of illegals...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:24PM (3 children)
Well then. You better get out there and start knocking on doors and demanding documents from people. Don't bother kicking the brown scum out of the country, just shoot them dead. They deserve it of course, right? In fact, why bother even asking for documents? If they're brown they're probably illegal anyway. And even if they are legal, they're gonna be shifty anway, amirite?
If you had the courage of your convictions that's exactly what you'd be doing anyway, instead of whinging about it here.
It shouldn't take you, your kids, grandkids, great-grandkids and great-great-grandkids more than a few centuries to get it done. So get the hell off SN and get to work you lazy bastard!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:51PM (2 children)
forgot the </sarcasm> tag..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:56PM
Says who?
Anyone who gets Poe'd [wikipedia.org] with that deserves to either be completely outraged or thinking they've found a kindred spirit.
Either way, if some folks can't figure it out their reactions will be amusing. Kisses!
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Friday March 15 2019, @08:54PM
you can use mine, I had one too many.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday March 15 2019, @04:53PM (13 children)
Totally, I mean that whole "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" was just marketing.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday March 15 2019, @05:15PM (9 children)
A discussion on who we should let into the country is pointless unless we can stop people from just walking across. But I would be in favor of allowing anyone in who truly just wants a chance to contribute to the country and earn an honest living. Put up the wall and we can let them in while stopping the people looking to exploit them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @05:36PM (8 children)
Ummm what now? In no way will that stop the exploiters. Immigrants are easily exploited because they don't know labor laws and their employment prospects are shitty if they don't speak English very well.
The wall is stupid, full stop. It has been sold to you through a variety of emotional fear-mongering talking points, but it will be ineffective and a waste of money.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday March 15 2019, @06:29PM (7 children)
How is that an argument against the wall?
Besides, it will stop certain forms of exploitation. Specifically, the coyotes who smuggle people across the border away from the official ports of entry.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Friday March 15 2019, @08:22PM
How would a wall stop smugglers? Why wouldn't the people smugglers still smuggle people to the border and supply people with chutes and ladders? You would still need to staff the border the same way to catch everyone on the U.S. side of this wall you propose. Now you've spent money on a wall that has to be maintained as well as on a force of people to guard said wall. Is this a small government idea?
If you think that a wall will stop people running away from MS-13 which is funded in large part by the United States drug trade, you are looking for simple answers. Simple answers for simple people ey, right?
I'd suggest that instead of looking for simple answers to things, you dig real deep inside and figure out what it is you could change locally that would have an effect on people far away, therefore helping you and your drummed up fears. What are your fears again?
I personally don't fear people that want to escape violence, that want to work, and want a place to raise their kids that is safe. Sounds like me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Friday March 15 2019, @08:51PM (5 children)
You stop smugglers by making it unprofitable for them.
You stop illegals by enforcing police surveillance of where you find them: at work sites. Less illegals means less people smugglers.
Give large rewards to people who snitch on employers that employ illegals. Your employer will now think twice to replace you with a cheaper illegal.
Give large fines, increasing up to jail, to employers that employ illegals. That will make it too risky for normal employers to continue this practice and most will just give up.
After the police surveillance mechanisms are in place, you should begin to see the great benefits to the people of the border states: increasing wages at the bottom of society, because now the employers have to suddenly hire people protected by USA employment laws (don't know if you actually have any) and trade unions (if they're not made illegal in the last 100 years because communists).
Also, the Mexican immigrants working on a work permit will be discriminated against less, because it will no longer be automatically assumed that they're illegals for hire under minimum wage (the "they're taking OUR jerbs" argument). They become immigrant workers. Every country has them.
All you need is a law that every US company has to provide photocopied photo-id of all employees, including their social security numbers, upon request by the police, or face serious fines and retaliation.
As a side-effect you might see a significant increase in tax revenue, as well.
It isn't hard or expensive for the employers to enforce, either. If aspirant employees don't let you photocopy their driving license or passport, they just don't get hired.
This is how it's done in the Netherlands, AFAIK.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday March 16 2019, @03:24AM (2 children)
How about just enforcing minimum wage and other workplace laws? That removes the incentive to hire illegals and doesn't make us one of those "your papers please" dystopias. Note, currently people who don't drive are not required to have a driver's license.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday March 16 2019, @12:34PM (1 child)
I'm not sure, but to enforce minimum wage is much more difficult (=expensive), because you'd have to send accountants or tax department officials to audit the company's finances.
But a low-level police officer (i.e. without special bookkeeping training) can demand from the HR officer to see the photocopy of the photo id document and verify that the worker under suspicion has a social security number.
There are probably all kinds of complications in real life. But to enforce minimum wage laws I think you'd have to check each company regularly, not just "once per employee hire" (which is a statistic tht the police can't know but just has to guess).
If the system is as cheap as possible then you can check more often. And you don't really need to disturb the workers just the HR officer, and it is their job.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday March 16 2019, @05:22PM
Really, just have a cop go ask a few workers about their paycheck. Or hire a few legal immigrants to pretend to be illegal and apply for a job anywhere the cops suspect is a problem.
Cut off civil forfeiture for drugs and set a bounty of employers who cheat on minimum wage and they'll be all over it.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday March 16 2019, @07:20AM (1 child)
You seem to imply that we should do those things instead of a wall. Why not do all of the above and more? The wall is there to make it more difficult and time consuming to cross and makes patrolling the border more effective. The other things you mention make it less attractive to cross illegally. On top of those we could streamline legal immigration to make it easier, quicker and less costly to enter legally. If we do all of that, we might end up with an effective solution.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday March 16 2019, @01:06PM
You'd formulate a cost function, which is a summation of each policy multiplied by a weight, I guess. I never worked at that high a level of doing things, so I'm just making it up now:
cost = (estimated cost of photo id surveillance at company offices) / (estimated nr of illegals diminished because surveillance)
+(estimated cost of the Trump Wall) / (estimated nr of illegals diminished because wall)
+(estimated cost of streamlining legal migration) / (estimated nr of illegals diminished because streamlining)
Then you try to minimize this cost function. Cheaper surveillance = once a year, for example. Cheaper wall = a chickenwire fence. Cheaper streamlining = a higher price for a work permit. There are of course lower price limits where the effectivity of each of the 3 methods would drop off a cliff because you can't afford techniques that actually work and every perp just ignores the "white elephant". If a work permit costs $ 10 000 then more people will say: "sod it, I'll just try working illegally".
I think I did the cost function wrong. It feels wrong. Maybe it's instead maximize (estimated nr of illegals diminished) / (estimated cost) with dimension persons/$ .
Anyway the policymakers can decide to do all three up to a certain extent, or drop one or more of the measures because they're not worth the bother. The Trump Wall is something that I suspect wouldn't be effective at all below a certain minimum, very high price.
Hiring extra immigration officers is more flexible, but expensive if you need to fire them to reduce costs because you hired too many.
The photo ID surveillance sounds cheapest to me.
I wonder, has the US D.H.S. sent experts to Germany? They could interview Stasi pensioners to ask about the efficiency of the Berlin Wall, costs of the mine field and guards with mitrailleurs, etc.
Trump can't ask Erich Mielke [wikipedia.org] for advice, because he died in 2000.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @05:58PM (2 children)
That's not policy, it's from a poem written by a Zionist activist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @11:03PM (1 child)
Wow. Troll? The OP stated only the facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lazarus#Activism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday March 16 2019, @01:33PM
I'd also like to add that you're all talking about building a fucking wall on the border of your country which now has VIPR teams at inland airports, Random traffic stops asking for papers, Constitution free zones, and an immense state surveillance apparatus. You know ... for those keeping score at home that are not cowering in their closets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @05:36PM (1 child)
Would it be stretching the point too far to suggest we take your "immigration based on merit" concept and expand on it just a bit?
Why not just simplify it all and just go with merit-based citizenship, regardless of how you got here?
Immigration, kidnapping, birth... doesn't matter. As soon as they come in, weigh them based on merit and only keep those who measure up. Given the wide variety in humanity, it stands to reason that at least some of those born here wouldn't be able to meet the entrance requirements - so why keep them if it's "merit" which is important? The map location of a birth seems a bit arbitrary and capricious when set against a merit standard.
Not sure who'd take those newborns who didn't make the cut, but let's leave that as an exercise for the reader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @07:57PM
While we’re there, they should weigh up the whole population and kick out the bottom X percent irrespective of citizenship. That would be merit based without the grandfathering in of all the lazy fat ‘American’ assholes that are a drain on society.