The Death of the US-Mexico Virtual Fence 467
eldavojohn writes "A couple of years ago it was announced that the Boeing-built virtual fence at the US-Mexico border didn't work. Started in 2006, SBInet has been labeled a miserable failure and finally halted. A soon-to-be-released GAO report is expected to be overwhelmingly critical of SBInet, causing DHS Chief Janet Napolitano to announce yesterday that funding for the project has been frozen. It's sad that $1.4 billion had to be spent on the project before the discovery that this poorly conceived idea would not work."
really? (Score:2, Funny)
Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if we can just put an end to the asinine "war on drugs", we'll be in good shape. When the laws surrounding a substance are more harmful than the substance itself, there is a serious problem.
As far as the fence is concerned, if we had just poured $1.4 billion into Mexico's economy instead of this cluster fuck of an idea, workers would have less of a reason to leave Mexico and try to sneak into our country. They come here for jobs, but if we help create jobs in their own country...
We will never be able
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way to "create jobs" in Mexico without first staging a revolution. The problem is that the upper class owns just about everything and isn't interested in employing people and is very interested in keeping prices for things like food down. So the farmers get nothing for their crops and end up living as subsistance farmers. Understand that it is completely divided across racial lines in Mexico - the Mexican Indians are poor, the Castillians are the upper class. Why we in the US should help perpetuate this system is beyond me.
How do you fix that? Well, building foreign-owned factories doesn't do it. Sure, it makes a slight difference in an area around Juarez, but nothing else. And because there is no foundation to build on, the people with jobs at the factory have no idea what to do with their different life.
Today, if someone crosses the border from north to south into Mexico they will be met by the Mexican Army, arrested and likely confined, possibly for a long time. There is no possibility that someone is going to stay there unmolested - the people will turn the "invader" in if they manage to elude the Army and the police. This is the complete opposite of what happens to a border crosser going from south to north - which means pretty much we deserve exactly what we are getting.
The only way that this will end is when the standard of living is equal between the two countries. Since raising the standard in Mexico is impossible because of the culture and financial system, it means that the US has to have the same standard of living as Mexico does today. With 25% real unemployment, very tight credit and a collapsed housing market we are well on our way there. When the amnesty is passed later this year we will likely see that there are 20-30 million people from Mexico in the US in a few years. This will pretty much put the finishing touches on the labor market.
A strong border is simply not a priority with most people. Either they don't see the effects or they somehow believe that we "owe" it to Mexico to help the poor people so the upper class can continue to ignore them. Of course many businesses welcome the minimum-wage labor force that is supplied from Mexico. The work that cannot be outsourced can be done in the US by people to whom minimum wage for a week is 10 times what they could make in a year back home.
Sure, we could have built a strong border - but without support of the citizens of the US it would never work. And we clearly do not have support of the citizens. Napolitano wanted to throw open the border when she was governer in Arizona, probably mostly for the benefit of the businesses here. The fact that it makes getting a entry-level low-skill job impossible meant nothing to her.
We better build a really strong social safety net, because when we are at 30-40% unemployment we are all going to need it.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way that this will end is when the standard of living is equal between the two countries. Since raising the standard in Mexico is impossible because of the culture and financial system, it means that the US has to have the same standard of living as Mexico does today.
Actually its worse, since you're assuming Mexicos economy won't collapse faster than ours.
Two huge sources of income to Mexico are currently collapsing (not collapsing in the future, I'm talking about right now)
1) About half their govt budget came from selling oil... Their wells are now in permanent, fast decline. Once its all pumped out, its gone. That doesn't mean there is no production, just like the US has been in permanent oil production decline for 40 years but still produces a little oil. Higher tech means the extraction rate is higher so the decline is faster. And producers become importers at a much faster rate than total gross production decreases. Mexico is going to stop exporting oil pretty soon. Most of which, went to the USA. Ooops. So we're out of oil and they're out of cash. This won't turn out well.
2) A substantial fraction of their GNP (like a third to a fifth, depending on whom you believe) was Mexicans in the US sending money back home, via WU or cash or whatever. Probably via drug trafficking too. As the US slides into great depression 2, that money flow to Mexico dries up.
You may think that we're chasing down to them at the bottom. But they are falling faster than we are, if anything. Where we'll meet up, as you claim, is likely to be way the heck down there...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In terms of historical oil production, google came up with this chart [wikimedia.org] which I was going to link to initially and shows a rather steep decline. But it contradicts the DOE's own chart [doe.gov] even though it cites the DOE as a source. So I'm guessing the wiki chart is wrong and uses figures massaged by a peak oil advocate.
Nice assumption, but you know what they say about assumptions. The DOE chart shows "petro" values declining from a peak of 11M barrels in 1983-ish, while the Wikimedia chart shows a decline from about 9M barrels in 1985-ish. This should indicate to you that the DOE chart includes petrochemicals that are not oil - like LNG [wikipedia.org] and coal.
Oh, and check the DOE's raw data [doe.gov] for a chart that is specific to crude oil, that lines up pretty much exactly with Wikimedia chart.
Re: (Score:3)
Once upon the time, people crossing the border any means possible was a problem for the East, not West, Germany. And once upon the time millions arriving into the country looking to work hard and make their fortune - just like the Mex
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, if someone crosses the border from north to south into Mexico they will be met by the Mexican Army, arrested and likely confined, possibly for a long time. There is no possibility that someone is going to stay there unmolested - the people will turn the "invader" in if they manage to elude the Army and the police. This is the complete opposite of what happens to a border crosser going from south to north - which means pretty much we deserve exactly what we are getting.
Have you ever actually been to Mexico, or are you just reciting a joke you heard once at a Tea Party? Crossing into Mexico doesn't even require sneaking -- just walk right through the border crossing station. There *might* be a guard there, and in some rare cases he might actually be doing more than a cursory random inspection of bags. The reason you never see a line going south at any of the border crossings is *not* because there aren't just as many people crossing in that direction; it's because the "security" you cite is demonstrably absent.
That's not to be confused with committing a crime in Mexico, which will likely result in the consequences you describe. But crossing the border is trivial, and gaining permanent residency is only slightly more involved. Most people are pleasant, though you may encounter implicit or overt hostility in some areas -- away from tourist towns in particular. But that's no different than a foreigner in *any* country.
I agree that we're getting what we deserve -- but I heartily disagree that what we're getting is detrimental on the whole. Illegal immigration is a minor annoyance at worst, and beneficial to the economy at best. Even the idea that it takes away jobs is fallacious, because jobs are not a fixed value. Immigrants create added demand for existing goods and services, just like anyone else. People -- even Mexicans -- need to eat, so they buy food. They also procure other basic necessities such as water, shelter, transportation, and eventually fulfill higher level desires, all of which contributes to the demand for "legitimate" jobs; skilled or not. They are certainly less damaging than our mutual ancestors were, and their offspring are assimilated into our Borg collective more readily than immigration provocateurs would like to admit. Sure, many immigrants, legal or illegal, send money back to their relatives, and some may end up moving back at some point. The net result, however, is beneficial for everyone in the long run, because increased prosperity for our neighbor increases both our security and the market for our products.
Complaining that you can't get a job as a consequence of immigration is like complaining that you can't get a girlfriend as a consequence of alternative suitors. It is the very sense of entitlement, of anti-free market sentiment, that those opposing illegal immigration so often decry in every other context. In a word, it's hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it funny that the argument seems to be that we either help them not come here, or we make it easy for them to work in the US.
That seems to be the two sides of the debate. I gotta say, someone has done an awesome job changing the debate..
No where have I heard anyone say "Lets fine/arrest/throw in jail the people that Knowingly hire people that they are not allowed to."
I have yet to see a farmer get fined/jail, whatever, for firing his workers, and then hiring undocumented workers.
I have yet to see an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the republicans get back into office, they'll go back to railing against immigrants
You may not be aware of this but the last immigration bill was pushed heavily by Bush, McCain, and other Republican leaders.
Poorly conceived idea? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poorly conceived idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
This thing has been shocking for years. At every major point in the development, Boeing basically said, "trust us" and the Government basically said, "OK".
Where is the design and analysis, where is the small-scale working model, where is the prototype, where is the incremental build up, where are the TEST RESULTS?????
I mean come on people! Committing to full scale production before you've seen a working model is foolish. Committing to it AGAIN, even when you've NEVER seen improvement in the original performance is just asinine.
California Agriculture Wins Again (Score:4, Insightful)
They say they can't compete without cheap labor, but it they'd have invested as much in robots as they have in lobbying for protection and special access to illegal immigrants, then they'd be competitive without having to load NAFTA with special protections just for them. (free trade. ha!)
Now the restaurants and building industry are spraying malathion on the middle class suburbs. (just call your critics "xenophobes" and you WIN the argument. wtf? )
Just fine the crap out of people that hire illegals and the problem goes away.
but no. let's build a virtual fence and make sure it doesn't work.
If picking lettuce and sweeping floors is scarce labor, how come wages have gone down in these industries? Why is average working Joe making less? Wouldn't wages have gone up if the labor was as scarce as some people whine about?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not even the japaneese have a robot that can pick a cotton or grape field for the cost/quality that you get from a poor human
And that's just a complete fucking lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker [wikipedia.org]
A cotton harvester can economically out-perform dozens of poor humans. And grape pickers aren't that far behind.
This project was not about building a fence (Score:5, Insightful)
This project was about two things:
1) Lining the pockets of a lot of people
2) Making those who fear illegal immigration feel better
Goal 1 was *very* successful. Goal 2, not as much but...there will be other mufti-million dollar projects coming up that will.
Seriously, did anyone really think this would work? Of course not. Plain common sense would immediately tell you this was destined for failure. Government and corporations simply ignored that and moved forward, That's a difference between "them" and "us."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They just need to try a couple more times. Use makes master - even prehistoric Britons knew what was up:
Re: (Score:2)
Millions are soooooo 1990s, chump change is now measured in billions, and apparently, if you want people to even notice, you have to spend in trillions.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Government and corporations simply ignored that and moved forward, That's a difference between "them" and "us."
Actually corporations would have enough sense to realize, "This won't work," and cancel the project ahead of time to save themselves cash. But since it was government paying the bill, the corporation didn't give a frak about wasting gov't money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept and goal is completely feasible. It has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with private companies that live within there own world where everyone is just as likely to stab someone else in the back as they are to actually try to progress a project.
Had in been a government design, and implemented in a manner where companies bid for pieces to complete, instead of the whole thing, it could be successful.
I mean it's not really needed and does nothing but pander to irrational fear, but
If they had called it SkyNet (Score:2)
Maybe it's because... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Top-Down Error (Score:2)
This is yet another example (Score:2)
of how large private companies only beholden to a few shareholders can not reliably build large complex systems.
It's sad that $1.5 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sad that $1.5 billion had to be spent to try and protect honest God-fearing Americans from poor Mexicans who wanted to pick our fruit for minimum wage.
Re:It's sad that $1.5 billion (Score:5, Informative)
It's sad that $1.5 billion had to be spent to try and protect honest God-fearing Americans from poor Mexicans who wanted to pick our fruit for below minimum wage.
There, fixed that for ya.
Too much sensing, not enough firepower (Score:3, Insightful)
This was all about "sensing". It didn't actually do anything to stop border crossers.
Multiple fences with a patrol road between them, plus a chain of towers to discourage people cutting the fence, might actually work. The sections with physical fences are doing their job now. There's solid fence from the Pacific Ocean to Yuma, AZ., which has pushed crossing attempts into Texas and the desert.
Why didn't the virtual fence work? (Score:5, Interesting)
After reading through 100 comments on the politics of Mexican immigrant workers, I realized I'm reading a technology blog, and all I wanted to know was why the fence didn't work. The article doesn't really say. It says the "fence" is composed of towers with monitoring equipment. But it doesn't really say what that equipment was supposed to do, or what it failed to do.
"Ninety to 100 percent of all illegal crossers, this camera system was going to identify and characterize this threat,"
What does that mean? Was it supposed to magically know who was crossing illegally and who wasn't? Or identify Mexicans -vs- Americans? That's silly. Was it just supposed to detect people, or movement? Did it fail at doing that?
"It's not a matter of, you know, do you look at the screen and see things?" Stana said. "Yes, you're going to see some things. The question is: Are you going to see things over time? Is it a quality image and is it a reliable image?"
This is still very vague. It is supposed to "see things over time" - what things? Over what time? Was it supposed to identify behaviors somehow?
This whole thing is really vague.
Re:Why didn't the virtual fence work? (Score:5, Informative)
60 Minutes did a story on this system a few months ago. As best I recollect:
1) The initial plan was vague. If you don't have an actual plan, then you won't ever have to call call the project done. This is good for Boeing, bad for the people paying the bills.
2) They finally decided that the plan would be that computers and cameras should surveil the area between towers, and, alert the people running the dispatch center of suspicious activity. "Suspicious activity" = people in the area. No person would be walking in these areas unless they were trying to cross the border illegally.
3) Boeing designed and delivered the initial system. THEN sat down the dispatch people at the consoles. Who promptly said it sucked and was worthless. You heard that right: Boeing did NOT bother to bring in the users who would use the system during the design phase. Also, it was here that the 'discovery' was made that the optics and cameras were WAY more expensive than Boeing originally said (because a web-cam is one thing, and camera that can resolve a clear picture at two miles is another). Of course, better optics means (a lot) more data (which the networks couldn't handle), larger storage requirements for the DVR, etc.
4) Re-work time.
5) Finally the trial tests. Oops. The heat seeking portion doesn't work in the heat of a desert. The radar kept triggering on wind-blown bushes and the occasional Rocket J. Squirrel. The radar didn't work for people sized targets in the rain. If you are a group of bad guys and see that that the camera is swiveling toward you, freeze for a bit (drop to your hands and knees and pretend to be the authorized Bullwinkle J. Moose). The camera will move on. The electronics equipment couldn't handle the heat. The electronics equipment couldn't handle the dust. The dust clogged gear was on the wrong end of very tall / difficult to climb towers.
6) In-truck computers. The Border Patrol was supposed to chase down people being guided by laptops hooked back to base. Except it is essentially impossible to drive around in the (extremely bumpy) desert AND work a computer at the same time.
Did I mention that a single World-War One style trench subverts the whole thing?
Nine towers and 28 miles in, the problems seem insurmountable. Boeing keeps saying they could deliver a system that works though. Just throw gobs more billion at it.... It's a 2,000 mile border.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking immigrants to follow the law and immigrate legally isn't being a xenophobe.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, if the hassle of being "legal" is too much for you then you should just return to your country.
And I say this as a Mexican who does not plan to go to the USA due to their current policies against immigrants.
Having said that, I believe the USA really needs to fix their immigration programs as they are broken. As I heard some American guy who used to work at IBM: Mexico does not have a problem with immigration, it is a USA problem. Mexico just "exports" very cheap labour. The problem is that the USA gover
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same logic that says the problem of Mexican drugs being imported into the US is the US's fault? Sure, there needs to be demand, but this is a bit like saying that murderers wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for all of these *living* people around!
Honestly, I believe the problem needs to be solved on both sides of the border. Americans are willing to pay a fraction of what they would to a local, to do a menial job. Mexicans are willing to risk life and limb just to get a chance to do that job. Something is very wrong with every part of this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really wrong with it is that there are 18 million Americans who are also willing to work for that fraction- but aren't getting the jobs because of racial discrimination.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed fraction of the wealthiest person is impractical, because that changes so much and so rapidly and randomly.
What one could do, would be fixed fraction of the average income in the top 10% or top 25%.
Most Americans aren't aware of it, but the income-differences in USA really -are- grotesque as compared to 95% of the developed world. GINI is a measure of income-inequality where 1 would mean only the richest person had income at all, everyone else earns zero, and 0 would mean everyone has identical income.
Real countries are somewhere in between, offcourse. The tendency is for dictatorships, fascist countries and poor countries to have high indexes (only a tiny elite has good education and good income), whereas developed countries where reasonable education is available to all, has much lower indexes.
Have a look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png [wikipedia.org]
Most countries as developed as USA are at under 0.30, 0.30 is the average for european union for example, and the tendency is that the poorer countries are more unequal whereas the richest countries such as Sweden are around 0.25
USA ? 0.45 -- surrounded by countries such as the ivory coast, uruguay and uganda.
In short, if you're poor in USA, you're as far away from the rich-elite as you are in typical third-world countries that are ruled by a tiny elite that holds all the priviledges.
Grotesque.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course there are fiscal issues when people hire workers that officially don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that if the immigration process weren't so long and cumbersome the huge majority of illegals would be running to the immigration offices. It's obviously better for the individual to be legal than an alien, and if they still can't do it, then it's somebody else's fault.
The Mexican government can be argued to be at fault for not providing proper employment within the homeland, but defending that point is very naïve. The USA doesn't have a 0% unemployment rate either.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Mexico operates a strict immigration policy which seeks to protect the interests -- especially the job interests -- of its own citizens. You will need to prove an income from a foreign company or have specialized skills to be granted leave to live and work in Mexico.
From http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/livingconsiderationsmexico.php#4 [mexperience.com]
The truth of the matter is, US immigration policy is far more lenient than most countries in the world
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever considered that the US has enough domestic workers to fill its requirements for manual labor? I say this as someone that is directly affected by illegal immigration. I do residential carpentry, and I've watched my employer file bankruptcy because we simply can not compete with illegal labor. It's not like we're demanding a fortune (My best year I netted slightly above the poverty line), but we're not willing to put in 84 hour weeks and do work that is in violation of the building code. Eve
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to fill up the demand of international labour in the country.
At 10% unemployment, I'd say the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to use up the supply of domestic labor either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it has. Unemployment benefits expire after a little while, at which time job-seekers will lower their asking price and the rest will sort itself out.
Anybody can find work. They are just having trouble finding work they like, at a pay rate that supports their prior lifestyle.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to create jobs.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PATROL THE FUCKING BORDER
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to create jobs.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PATROL THE FUCKING BORDER
It's also the gov't's job to seek out and prosecute the employers of illegal immigrants, and not turn a blind eye to it because that cheap immigrant labor helps its corporate sponsors keep labor costs down.
What disturbs me most about the anti-immigrant backlash of the last few years is that so much vitriol is directed at the illegal immigrants while little is said about those who employ them. Is all this illegal immigration a conspiracy of poor migrant workers from Mexico who hoodwink innocent US employers into hiring them, or do US employers have the clout to lobby/bribe gov't into lax enforcement because it is in their economic interest to keep labor costs low? Does anyone believe these people would risk so much to cross the border if US employers faced any real risk in hiring them?
But no, let's focus the blame on the poor Mexicans, because, well, they're just so much easier to hate. But it's not racism or xenophobia, no sirree!!
That's the real issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guarantee that if the employers of illegal immigrants started having to do the perp walk, illegal immigration would drop to nothing in about 2 seconds. But that'll never happen, because it would embarrass rich people and more importantly, cost them money.
Trying to build fences and the like to keep out illegal immigrants is like trying to hold back the tide. If we were serious about the problem, we'd go to the source and start arresting the people who employ them. But we're not serious about the problem - the government has chosen instead to pretend to do something about the problem, while not actually inconveniencing the rich and powerful (and oh, by the way, dumping huge amounts of money into the pockets of various defense contractors for silly projects like the "virtual fence").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your comment. My wife is a legal immigrant and we are against illegal immigration. It seriously feels like a kick in the nuts every time, we hear that illegals should be allowed to stay/given amnesty.
I say kick 'em all out, get a sane work program going and make them all re-apply to come back.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Informative)
Asking immigrants to follow the law and immigrate legally isn't being a xenophobe.
No, but structuring the legal immigration process so that it's darned near impossible to immigrate unless you're highly-educated is.
My wife and I have been trying for years to help a friend of hers who is a Nigerian national living in Italy come over. At one point a staffer in our congressman's office got so frustrated with the law that she actually suggested that my wife's friend come on a tourist visa and then overstay! It appears that the best legal option is the immigration lottery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So we need to revise the legal immigration path. That's fine. But this labeling anyone who opposes open, rampant border crossing with zero control a "racist" or a "xenophobe" is unfathomable bullshit that needs to stop so the problem can actually be debated. It's an anti-intellectual tactic trotted out by the other side to clamp down on open discussion.
And, I'm sorry, but we can't take everyone who wants in. We can't afford it even in the best of times. Eventually you are taxing all income over X dollars at
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
And, I'm sorry, but we can't take everyone who wants in. We can't afford it even in the best of times. Eventually you are taxing all income over X dollars at 100% and confiscating all corporate profits, and still don't have enough money.
This assumes that each new person is a net cost to government coffers. If that's true, then we have bigger problems than immigration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Run the numbers... If you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of income earners you are likely to be paying more into the system than you are getting out of it. For the rest of us, the system is so overbearing that we have no hope of paying for it. We are leaving that for our kids and grandkids (in the form of debt). It's simple, really.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
As I said... bigger problems than immigration. And, actually, given the Ponzi-scheme nature of what we've been doing for decades now, plus the decline in native birth rate, we may NEED massive immigration just to have a prayer of eventually every catching up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's that or kill all the old people. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
This assumes that each new person is a net cost to government coffers. If that's true, then we have bigger problems than immigration.
It is true, and we do have a bigger problem than immigration: businesses that aren't willing to pay living wages to get workers.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Informative)
Each new person? No. But I would say it's safe to assume that each new illegal immigrant (undocumented worker, labor sans paper -- whatever) is.
Do a little research. In 2004, it was estimated that 15% of California's public student body were children of illegal aliens. At around 6.2 million students today, 15% (assuming the number hasn't increased) comes out at around 1 million students. At a cost of about $9k-$12k per student, That's nearly $100 billion dollars a year. JUST in educating them. That's not counting the costs in "free" or "subsidized" lunches, either. Or "free" transportation.
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to generate 100 billion in state tax revenue for California? How many people who actually aren't using fake SSNs and setting the w-2s so they get next to no income withholding?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Along those lines...
Hair based drug testing relies on melanin - most drugs they test for bind to the melanin in the hair.
So detecting drugs in people with black hair is 50x easier than it is for people with blond hair.
So you get a situation where the entire process is racist, but most of the people have no idea just how biased it is and just accept on blind faith that the people in charge are doing the right thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but how do you detect drugs in the hair of somebody who doesn't do drugs?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is that white people get to take drugs and get away with it while the browner people do not.
Selective enforcement based on hair color is racism.
But thanks for demonstrating just how deeply some people have abrogated their critical thinking skills to the war on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
There are water shortages across huge sections of the country. For a while there were talks of riots ensuing in the Atlanta area as water levels were reaching dangerously low levels. The roads, schools, and prisons are filled to capacity. There are shortages of decent cheap housing.
Tough luck for you if the majority of people in this country don't want this problem exacerbated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because the U.S. welfare/medicare system is already overburdened and therefore wants educated/professional people who will ADD funds to the system, not suck more out.
I'd also argue that the U.S. has enough people already. When the oil crisis hits in the 2020s (price rises about $200/barrel), we'll have a hard enough time feeding the 310 million persons we have now. We don't need more bodies to make the situation worse. I'm not saying we should completely stop immigration - just be selective in who
Re: (Score:2)
By definition Xenophobic doesn't have qualifiers about education or anything else. It's an undue fear of foreigners or things foreign, period.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobe [reference.com]
What you're describing is something else. Only letting in useful or highly educated people from other countries isn't xenophobic. It may be a dick move but it's _not_ xenophobic.
It's unfortunate about your Nigerian friend, but perhaps she should have spent the last years increasing her education so that she'd have more p
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Three points;
1. The argument that legal immigration into the U.S. is wrong and invalid. The U.S. grew, up until around WWII, largely through legal immigration. Since then, we have not needed to grow via immigration, though we permitted it even after WWII. The reality is that we do not need legal immigration to satisfy our labor needs; we are told by industries that we 'need immigrant workers', when in reality the demand from them is for lower-paid workers. Technology, service, every industry that employs legal or illegal immigrants does so to lower costs. The H1B program is an exampole of the abuse of a legal immigration program. Illegal immigration speaks for itself.
An example of illegal immigration causign problems is the Maine blueberry harvest. This used to be, in the 60s and 70s, dominated by Mic Mac indians and local people (like me) who could make decent money for a few weeks' work. It is now 60% Hispanics, many illegal immigrants. Some stay and take other jobs in Maine.
The refrain is ';who will clean the toilets? Americans don' want thosejobs' My question is, who cleaned them before Hispanics came to Maine? The answer is, Mainers. Americans. But they will cost more. If it's about wages, let's have that discussion. ok? It is my contention that Americans will do the work avaialble if they have a chance, and if they need to. If it's about minimum wage, ok, fix that. If it's about working conditions, fix that. But if it's about letting illegal immigrants do the work for less, then either legalize them
or send them home.
2. No one has a dog in this fight except for everyday citizens. Business obviously likes cheaper labor. Politicians like new voters, and cater to them. Unions see them as potential new members. Government and other agencies see them as needing services and increasing demand for their services. Other nations use them as 'safety valves', sparing their own economies the trouble of providing jobs or services. So how do we fix this?
3. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Let's either address that and stop the flow, or change the rules. I don't mind if we decide to allow unfettered immigration, or lower the barriers, but we should certainly make the choice. Until then, when will our government address the problem? Do we need to vote them out again and again until they get the point? When does our government stop listening to the corporations and start listening to us?
And just declaring amnesty doesn't work. Stopping the flow is the only first step, securing the souther border first. We cannot expect Mexico to do anything at all, as it is not in their interest. And if we do secure the border, expect Mexico to react harshly. The Mexican government most certainly has a stake in this, and will
be significantly impacted if we do shut off the flow. Then we can begin to have honest discussions with them, perhaps. But not before. We've proven to them that we do not have the will. We will need to change that first.
Complaints that legal immigration is difficult miss the point that it is supposed to be. The U.S. is much more welcoming of legal immigration than most any other nation. But we do have the right to choose who we let in, don't we?
ps- I used to play soccer with MANY foreign nationals going to school in the U.S., several if which were Nigerians. Wonderful people, and very different. Why does your wife's friend think they are a good candidate for legal immigration? We probably do give 'highly-educated' people a much easier path, but that makes senss to me. Is Italy so bad a place? I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you tell me?
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends on the content of the law.
Make It Easy for a Mexican to Become US Citizen (Score:2)
As easy as it is for an American to become a Mexican citizen.
oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Asking immigrants to follow the law and immigrate legally isn't being a xenophobe
How is this flamebait?
Sure the laws might need to be changed,
But it isn't fair to others who follow the law.
Just because one group is close to the US boarder they get away will all types of crap.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but jumping to conclusion on the effect of immigration is xenophobic.
It is a pretty clear sign of xenophobic when people are only concerned about having a fence on ONE border... racist, really.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Couldn't that $1.4 billion have been better spent buying Valium for the rampant xenophobes in Congress?"
Yes, I couldn't agree more. The only thing coming out of Washington that is good for 'We The People', is gridlock. When they actually do stuff, it always seems to cost us more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It wouldve been better spent in tv ads adressing the dangers drug consumption abuse, while at the same time you legalize drugs.
And then both mexico and the us would be happier, richer countries, with money spent where it should, instead of in a drug "war" nobody can win.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing coming out of Washington that is good for 'We The People', is gridlock. When they actually do stuff, it always seems to cost us more.
Well, that just might be the intent. After all, for several decades now the US government has been mostly run by people who consider corporate profits the most important thing in the world. Of course, we've long used the term "pork" to refer to Congress passing laws designed to funnel money to companies in their district. This story is just a more blatant recent version of this, where the money is funneled to construction companies while openly ignoring questions about whether it'll even work. The real answer, of course, is "Who cares?", since the actual goal was enriching the officers and stockholders of the construction firms.
The other growing example of this is the US pseudo-debate over health care. If you listen to this "debate" at all, it rapidly becomes clear that they almost never discuss health care itself. Rather, they always talk about the money, primarily insurance money. The main consideration in both Congress and the White House is that the existing insurance companies and the flock of other medical management firms, which do no actual medical work at all, maintain or increase their income. Actual medical care is far down in the list of priorities. Even when corporations such as hospitals are discussed, the "issues" are things like profits, mergers & acquisitions, etc.; they rarely deal with any actual medical issues.
It was especially blatant in the recent "bank bailout". Many analysts reported that the government's support money went almost entirely into three things: officer bonuses, share dividends and acquisitions of smaller financial firms. Almost nothing went into fixing the problems that had got the financial system in trouble. So this was yet again a way of funneling money into the corporate owners, with no concern for whether it solved any actual problems.
But none of this should be surprising. We've even read here frequently how the only important thing is corporate profit, and corporations exist for no other purpose. When this is the major source of almost all campaign funding, you should expect exactly what we've got. And it's the main ideology in US politics these days, in both major parties and several minor parties.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Funny)
Couldn't that $1.4 billion have been better spent buying Valium for the rampant xenophobes in Congress? Just trank 'em all out and stop them from worrying about a non-problem.
One of L. Sprague de Camp's fantasy novels features a tribe of barbarians who discuss all political issues twice: once sober, once drunk.
I think this is an excellent idea. Who's going to lobby Congress?
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Funny)
The nature of political debate and commentary shifts. I can see it now...
* "We need to allocate more funds for Congressional statutory drinking"
* "I can't drink - my religion prohibits this. This law is unconstitutional, waaa!"
* "If you don't drink (Johnny Walker/White Horse/Jack Daniels) you're not a REAL American"
* (In Texas) "...how can we entertain a notion inspired by those East-coast ivory-tower appletini-drinking fag^H^H^H^H liberals...."
* (In Mass) "...how can we entertain a notion espoused by those cow-herding, tequila swilling hick^H^H^H^H conservatives..."
* "The honor'ble member is a MORON! (barf)"
* 100 drunk Senators song
* "More hookers!"
* Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the temperance movement? (Follows the "I have here a list of non-drinking employees of the Department of State" speech)
* Read my lips: no more scotch!
* "Trickle down" economics gets a whole new twist.
* "Mr. President, we must not allow a distillery gap!"
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Funny)
How are you going to get them sobered up?
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to depend really strongly on what kind of drunk the politicians are. The weepy drunks aren't going to be valuable, nor are the horny drunks (ick, try not to think about that too much), while the angry drunks will dominate discussion. (meanwhile the barfy ones will be in the back missing out on everything.) Come to think of it, this won't be that different from normal politics...
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped. Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Informative)
Absolutely, those jobs will get taken by Americans - often high school students and people going to college part time. Problem is today in most cities you can't get a job as a burger-flipper as a high school student. They simply aren't available.
Similarly, if you don't manage to get a college degree and want to get a job you will find that minimum wage jobs pretty much require speaking Spanish, because all your co-workers speak nothing but Spanish. If you are bilingual and have even a little bit of experience you can be the "foreman" but of course there are only a few of those jobs available.
The work that can't be outsourced is now going to low-wage workers right here in the US. Because these people are earning 10x what they could get back home, they are willing to put up with anything to get and keep minimum-wage jobs. This isn't going to change when they become legal, voting citizens. We are building our very own slave underclass right under our noses and most people just don't care. Somehow, we are doing this to "help" the poor in Mexico. Which isn't helping at all because it just allows the upper class there to ignore the situation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Many illegals also pay income and social security taxes. In fact, they often pay MORE than legal residents would, because they don't dare file for the income tax refund.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of packing plants in the midwest that used to provide men a living wage for their families. Those guys are almost all gone and in their place are 30 guys named Jesus who all share the same social security number.
American citizens had those jobs and DID those jobs for years and years. It wasn't until outfits like Hormel, IBP, and other found it was cheaper to higher the Hispanics that supposedly no one wanted them.
I'd posit that this is true for MANY of these jobs that Americans supposedly don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that when I was 12, I was picking crops right next door, and that my son doesn't have the same option to learn to work.
Only part of that is because I moved to the city- they used to bus kids out to the berry fields as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped.
... You sure those crops aren't being picked by migrants that show up during harvest season and vanish soon after?
Immigrant ninjas?
And when exactly is burger-flipping season, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, if it wasn't wasted on this, it would have been wasted on an afternoon in Iraq.
American citizens? Pffft, who cares about the health of your citizens, when you could be shooting Iraqis!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one other country with a statue considered to be a national symbol that says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free."
If we don't mean it, we shouldn't have that written on the Statue of Liberty. Just sayin'.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Funny)
Name one other country with a statue considered to be a national symbol that says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free."
If we don't mean it, we shouldn't have that written on the Statue of Liberty. Just sayin'.
The French knew what would happen. Those bastards set us up!
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Informative)
To your first point, regardless of reason, is fairly broad, and I don't think anyone who argues that doesn't agree with it being overly broad, but there are many many countries that have little to no restrictions on immigration for certain classes of people. For example, anyone who is born on in Ireland has a right to be both a Republic of Ireland citizen or a British Citizen. Also the Republic of Ireland allows anyone who has grandparents or parents born in Ireland to apply for citizenship.
The whole of the EU is a immigration free zone for other EU Citizens. Someone who is a French citizen can move to Germany for whatever reason they wish.
I am an American who legally immigrated to the UK and all government forms are printed in many languages that are not even found within the EU, such as Hindi and Chinese. Legal, illegal and asylum seeking immigrants to the UK have the right to demand services in their native language. While admittedly not everyone agrees with it, there are a many other countries that aren't so openly hostile to immigrants.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:5, Informative)
"Name one other country that allows anyone to cross into its borders regardless of the reason."
Like, almost every other country that isn't having a religious-xenophobic-hyperventilating-freak-out episode, to be frank. For almost the entire existence of our country (and my life) we could travel from the US to Canada and back with no documentation and no questions asked. Worked perfectly fine, and at low cost.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I grew up in a small midwestern town, and maybe this makes me xenophobic, but would it be too much to ask if people immigrating to this country would culturally integrate themselves to the point of at least learning the language?
A a woman who proudly defined herself as a Russian Jew, made it a point to tell me that her son, who was born in the USA, was learning Russian as his first language because she wanted him to have a Russian accent - and that he could learn English when he was in kindergarten.
She woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them aren't taking (much less stealing) jobs at all: they are the non-working family members of legal immigrants or naturalized citizens who are notionally in one of the "priority" categories for legal immigration, and who otherwise would be supported by money sent out of the country by the worker who is legally here. Unfortunately, because instead of an overall limit within which the number of slots per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens
Just as I don't want to find some intruder walking around in my house without permission, neither do I want an intruder entering my country without permission. Pack them up, hand them a VISA application form, and send them home.
As for jobs, given the current ~10% unemployment rate, a lot of these businesses don't need to hire intruders from Mexico or Canada anymore. There are plenty of hungry or home
Re: (Score:2)
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc.
When 18 million Americans are unemployed, great jobs aren't an issue- ANY JOB IS THE ISSUE.
Re:$1.4 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was 16, I worked "flipping burgers". Rather than a high-school or college student doing it now, there's a 30 some odd polite (yes) Hispanic lady doing it. Is she here legally? I can't say, but I suspect she is. As well several of the staff.
On a higher level, at my current job (before our buy out), several people were making near or over $40k using bogus SSNs. Were THEY here legally? Cant say -- but they all bailed during our company buy out (and re-hire screening). I dont know about you, but I'd say $40k/year is far from your "[not] exactly great jobs [for] Americans" comment.
That said, my wife is a legal immigrant (from Syria). Came here when she was 19. Here entire family is from either Syria or Lebanon. Two of my grand parents immigrated legally. The others (except maternal grandfather's family) came one generation sooner. Apparently Pop-pop's family goes back to the early 1700s or earlier in Deleware.
What bothers me is people try to make this about race or "xenophobia". It's not. Its about national sovereignty. Why would it be bad to protect our southern border in the exact same way that Mexico protects it's southern border? I understand why Mexico protests -- as it would mean an end to a HUGE part of it's GDP (money flowing back in from the US from Mexican nationals working in the US illegally).
Re: (Score:2)
>> Do we really need a million plastic "movie tie-in" figurines to be given away with Happy Meals, or blankets with arms in them?
Hey! Do not knock the Snuggie!
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
And everyone who downloads a movie or music file from the internet illegally is also going to get involved in the drug trade, rape your daughter and murder any witnesses.
After all they've made is clear that American law means nothing to them by that downloading.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if you do not want Mexicans involved in trafficking drugs then Americans should stop consuming the darn shit. The only reason we keep pumping drugs through the Mexican transport channels it to make them arrive at the USA is because its population is gladly paying whatever price for them.
I am glad that at some point their dream-world gets touched by the reality of drug trading. Just look at the state of Cd. Juarez and the majority of the North of Mexico. If there was no demand on illegal drugs in the U
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I went to the wikipedia page on sbinet and got wiped out by a wall of text. What exactly is a virtual fence and what is it supposed to do?"
Well, I think the plan was to bury a wire all along the border. Then, you'd just need all the illegal immigrants to wear this collar, see. And then, when they try to cross where the wire is buried, they'd get a shock that would send them scurrying back to the south...
Or, maybe not.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You said it yourself.
They were trying to put up a giant wall of text along the border.
Re: (Score:2)
If they just put up giant Ctrl+Alt+Delete comics, it'd scare just about anybody out of coming into the country.
Re: (Score:2)
replace physical fence with smart cameras (Score:2)