Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams' 730

Posted by Zonk
from the where-do-I-live-now dept.
Dr_Barnowl writes "The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers." From the article: "'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants " Hey, it's working for Britain, right?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:05AM (#15453542)
    Quake 3 is open sourced, just use the game as a GUI.

    The illegal immigration problem would go away in days!

    • Feature requests (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ntijerino (306851)
      Shouldn't there be a way to tell if anybody else is watching that camera so that you don't have everybody watching just one camera while the rest of the cameras go unwatched? I just skimmed the article, but I didn't see any mention of that feature.
      • Wouldn't the problem with that be that you get a friend at home to watch the one by the spot you want to jump at? Or just check it yourself before you jump and find one without anyone watching?
    • A little OT, but there's a ranch here in Texas that does just that, you connect with your computer and can aim a rifle remotely. They use it for game hunting and it caused quite a large controversy here about a year ago.
  • by drp (63138) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:06AM (#15453548) Homepage
    These cameras will be publicly viewable by anyone on the internet, not just The Authorities.

    I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.
    • I have a problem with the public being employed to be fingermen, and to do a job which should be the governments responsibility.

      maybe this guy should watch a bit more closely http://www.youtube.com/v/5gP8nHSJnKw [youtube.com]
    • I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.

      When the entire populace is asked to police themselves, you end up with people writing anonymous letters to denounce their neighbours to the gestapo.

      (and I hereby verify Godwin's law in 10 seconds flat. beat that...)
      • When the entire populace is asked to police themselves, you end up with people writing anonymous letters to denounce their neighbours to the gestapo.

        ...and when the authorities police us with no oversight, you face a lack of accountability. [wikipedia.org] There has to be middle ground somewhere.

    • by lysergic.acid (845423) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:55AM (#15454026) Homepage

      So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?

      Guess again.

      The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.

      This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?

      If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.

      • by Millenniumman (924859) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:50AM (#15454614)
        They aren't monitoring citizens, they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country. It is promoting not xenophobia. A nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, and that is all that is happening. A sovereign nation has the right to decree who may or may not enter it. Even if you let every immigrant in, you have to control immigration, unless you have complete confidence in the other nation's security. Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons? This isn't a step towards fascism. I do agree that the government needs to be monitored more carefully, but we aren't in a crisis. We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits").
      • The problem with the Gestapo was not that they ran a tip line for citizens to turn one another in. The 911 emergency hotline is (in part) exactly that, and it's hardly controversial. If you see someone break a window or run someone over or commit murder, you call 911 and help the police catch the criminal, and you're a good citizen for doing so.

        The problem with the Gestapo was that it used its tip lines to enforce vague and unjust laws. If we had a law that said that it was illegal to be Jewish, illegal to
  • Slight Difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@@@gmail...com> on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:07AM (#15453565) Homepage Journal
    Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

    There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out. If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.
    • If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

      As a Texas resident I can guarantee you we wouldn't use a 20 gauge. Most likey we'd use a 12 gauge ..or a 30-06.
      • Re:Slight Difference (Score:5, Informative)

        by geobeck (924637) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:13AM (#15454219) Homepage
        As a Texas resident I can guarantee you we wouldn't use a 20 gauge. Most likey we'd use a 12 gauge ..or a 30-06.

        The difference, for those unfamiliar with shotgun gauge measurements:

        12 gauge:
        - BLAM!!
        - *croak*

        20 gauge:
        - bang!
        - Hey!
        - bang!
        - Stop shooting me, man!
        - bang!
        - Ow! That one broke the skin!
        - bang!
        - Okay, okay! We'll take the cameras down, just put the gun away, Mr. Vice President!

        (Actually Cheney shot his 'friend' with a 28-gauge, at close range. If it had been a 12-gauge, the guy would have no head.)

    • They said the same thing about the illegal phone tapping: that it was just for international calls. Now we learn that it's actually for all calls.

      Texans are already being spied on by their government, as are all Americans.
      • by drp (63138) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:28AM (#15453773) Homepage
        You know, I probably dislike Bush as much as you do, but I have to correct you here. From what has been released in the press (which, of course, could be wrong, but we have no reason to doubt it), domestic-to-domestic calls have not been listened to without a warrant. All that has been done (and I'm not saying that it isn't sketchy) has been an identity-less correlation of mass amounts of calling patterns, with no contents of calls being recorded or listened to.

        I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.
    • the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

      Which is why they banned guns in the UK, well that and the other Government things that we would blow away.
      • Did they ban paintball too? Those'll do just as well at making a camera of less than optimal utility for would-be Peeping Governmental Toms, and you're not actually destroying property so if they did catch you the charges would probably be less.
    • There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out.

      The moral of the story here ladies and gents, is that its fine to spy on your neighbours, but not upon your family.

      If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

      Demonstably incorrect. Texas already has cameras in public, and already has legislation allowing for secret camera
    • by HighOrbit (631451) * on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:14AM (#15454228)
      Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

      No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.

      Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.

      Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".

      Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.

      So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.
  • by JonTurner (178845) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:08AM (#15453572) Journal
    Now, if only we could add a web interface to a sentry gun...

    It's a Video Game. It's National Security. It's two, TWO, two games in one!
  • The BBC article doesn't mention what some other articles [chron.com] do: The cameras are to be on private land.

    I now have a new 'worst imaginary job':
    Me: Knock, knock

    Private Texan Ranch Owner: Yup?

    Me: I'm from the government, I'd like to place these cameras on your land, so that people on the internet can....
    (I can't ever see that sentence being finished)
    • Sad fact is that too many of those people wouldn't object to it as long as it was their favored political party asking to put in the cameras.
    • by cjsnell (5825) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:40AM (#15454530) Journal
      Obviously, you've never been on a South Texas ranch. You've never had your ranch house burglarized, vandalized, or your cars stolen by illegal immigrants or drug runners. This kind of stuff happens all the time in South Texas. Most of the ranchers that I know would welcome any federal progress towards stopping illegal immigration, including the installation of security cameras on their land.
  • by w33t (978574) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:09AM (#15453584) Homepage
    The government is even invading the privacy of whole other countries!
    --
    Music should be free [myspace.com]
  • A stronger border is what Americans want

    Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...
    • by lbrandy (923907) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:16AM (#15453651)
      Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...

      Feel free to browse here [pollingreport.com] to see what Americans think the biggest problems are. War in Iraq, gas prices, immigration are all high on every poll...
    • I want free beer.

      And my daughter would like a pony, too.

      And maybe world peace...but since I'm an intellectual, I know deep down that it would hurt the economy to have a slowdown in the defense sector, so in reality that world peace thing is just in case I grow a couple of boobs, lose 20 years, 60 pounds, and decide to enter the Miss America pagent.

      I'm sure stonger borders in somewhere on my list, I just think it may be on another page...somewhere in the 200s I suspect.
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:27AM (#15453764)
      A stronger border is what Americans want

      Says who?

      Says me! You have no idea how scared I am of those filthy Canadians sneaking across the border to take advantage of our healthcare system and steal all our good beer.
      • You have no idea how scared I am of those filthy Canadians sneaking across the border to take advantage of our healthcare system and steal all our good beer.

        Mmph!! (spits beer all over keyboard) Since when has the US had "good beer?" Are you talking about Budwater? Ever been out drinking with Canadians? The standard jab when you catch someone drinking a Coors Light is, "Ah, you must be the designated driver tonight, eh?"

        Canadian beer is so much better than US beer that ... holy crap, I can't believe I'm
    • by wiggles (30088)
      Usually when people say "I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans..." they really mean "Because I'm right and everyone else in the country has the same political agenda as me..."

      Not trying to knock you for your agenda, mine is very similar, but you should be aware that most of the time, the rest of the country does not have the same agenda as you do. Consulting a recent poll (below), I see that you're right about the war, but wrong about the other two.

      Stolen from Polling Report [pollingreport.com] and modified
  • Just as illegal immigrants "do the jobs americans don't want to do"(sic), now we have texans doing the jobs the government doesnt want to do.

    way to feed people's obsessive compulsive disorder government!

    Seriously, i can only see people fanatically obsessed willing to stare at a screen of nothing but desert for hours on end to report the evil job stealing border jumpers... that is while theyre not tapping the walls trying to find the martians out to roast them with laser beams.
  • Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hweimer (709734) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:11AM (#15453601) Homepage
    Now drug smugglers and other criminals finally have the possibility to find out in advance where the cameras are located and avoid being seen.
  • So while the government complained about the Minutemen watching the border, they're now creating what is essentially the same thing, only online.
  • Note to Self (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 42sd (557362)
    Before crossing border illegally, tell the authorities to check on the other side of the state.

    Sure it's hopefully not intended as something for rapid response, but if they are going to use just regular people its something that can be manipulated, and why even bother.
  • How Long... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    before the Eborder-jumpers just start hanging out in view of their very opwn free webcams and start crying and stripping like true webcammers?
  • by sczimme (603413) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:15AM (#15453648)

    From the BBC article:

    Mr Perry, a Republican, is running for re-election in November.

    I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the grandstanding^W pandering^W honest effort to do what's best.

    Besides, once someone identifies people crossing the border and "notifies the authorities", then what?

  • Hoo boy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:16AM (#15453649) Homepage Journal
    Not only do illegal immigrants have to jump fences, ford rivers, and risk life and limb.. now they have to camwhore as well.

    I can see the AIM bots now.. "Hola! Click here to see me and my girlfriends have wild parties, hide from border patrols, and dodge farmers' bullets! Tee-hee! ;-)"

  • response times? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:17AM (#15453665)
    What sorts of response times are we looking at? Suppose I saw someone run across the frame and reported it. How long would it take the officials to get there to deal with it? And what do you want to bet that the description that most callers report is going to be along the lines of "Well, he looked like a dirty Mexican"?
  • Now, just think for a moment if they offered rewards for reporting illegal immigrants. Nothing too spendy. Something really cheap, affordable, like illegals. We could have teams of illegals watching the border through webcams. Brilliant!
  • Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

    Of course here we aren't watching our own citizens. . .
  • by astrashe (7452) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:22AM (#15453713) Journal
    I've been waiting for something like this -- something that gets ordinary people to spy on one another. I know people will say this is the border, and the people crossing aren't "us".

    But I don't buy the distinction between "us" and the people crossing, and I don't believe this will stop at the border. Pretty soon we'll have the public looking for traffic violations, doing screen caps and scribbling down license numbers, infrared cams in parks looking for kids having fun at night, etc.

    We can put cams outside of bars, and let people look for people coming out, staggering a bit, and getting into their cars. You don't support drunk driving do you? And it's all on a public street.

    If we all spy on each other, we can live in a crime free paradise! Look how well that whole stasi thing worked out.
    • by isa-kuruption (317695) <kuruption&kuruption,net> on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:59AM (#15454069) Homepage
      It's called being a responsible citizen.

      Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).

      Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.

      What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!

      God you liberals make me sick.
      • I agreed with you right up till the end, when I got confused: what does me being a liberal have to do with anything you just said? If anything, I'd think that you, as a conservative, would OPPOSE putting up a bunch of intrusive, expensive, big-government cameras. See, I'm a small-government liberal: I think that cutting taxes is fine as long as our laws are actually enforced (which they're currently not, but that's another post). But spending money on something frivolous like PEACEFUL (and ultimately use
      • You're confused (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Groovus (537954) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:25PM (#15458468)
        You seem to be confusing witnessing with spying/surveillance.

        Witness is when you happen to be somewhere that something happens unexpectedly (to you) and you see/hear/experience it. You may or may not be engaging in responsible citizen type behavior by reporting what you witnessed whether voluntarily or by request. The OP is not in any way talking about this - why are you?

        Spying/surveilling is when you're actively, purposefully on the look out for what you believe to be bad things and report them whenever they happen. That's what the subject is here, not witnessing. I don't consider this kind of activity by non-authorized/non-professional people as being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN. It's quite the opposite in fact. It's one ingredient in the recipe for a miserable, repressive society.

        RANT
        You know what a true RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN is? It's someone who understands and is behind the principles on which the U.S. was founded and doesn't sit by spouting xeonophobic, fascist nonsense attempting to justify corrupt, morally bankrupt politicians and businessmen taking the wizz all over the Constitution for personal gain, crumpling it up, shoving it up our collective asses on a nearly daily basis and then calling it ice cream. It's pretty much the opposite of that in fact - it's someone who takes a stand against such things when they're attempted or even hinted at indirectly as is happening here with this fucking bill.
        END RANT

        I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just didn't get what the OP was talking about. Otherwise you're engaging in defense of uneeded xenophobia, totalitarianism and fascism, to which I'd say - god, cowardly douche bag morons make me sick.

    • by Angostura (703910) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:09AM (#15454186)
      Now, your average trendy lefty authority distrusting person, and I've been reading a number of the comments here, about how dreadful this is and we should leave law enforcement to the police.

      And yet, and yet. They are meant to be our laws, if I saw someone being mugged, I hope I would have the courage to step in and help. I think ultimately laws only succeed where they have the approval and support of the community. In the UK the concept of 'Neighbourhood Watch' where people look out for criminal or suspicious behaviour in their street has made a big difference to some people's lives and made communities safer. Shrugging shoulders and saying its the polices job is a pretty shoddy denial of responsibility

      So what is actually wrong with the proposal of letting any citizen 'twitch the net curtain'? Is it that the border/immigration laws themselves are unpalatable? If so they should be changed. If not, what's wrong with this as a mechanism of enforcement. It works for the back yard, why not for the Texas border?

      Does it infringe on rights, lead to unfair treatment or a minority or stoke prejudice? Not that I can see. If people think that they can help an over-stretched PD somewhat by sitting at their computers, is this a problem? Is it worse than running folding@home?

      I'm not sure.

  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:22AM (#15453715) Homepage Journal
    ...it may be worthwhile to mention that India has already built 1300 miles of it's 2500 mile [alipac.us] fenced barrier along it's border with Bangladesh.

    It may be noted (for those unfamiliar with the region's history/politics) that India has faced a considerable inflow of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for more than a decade [wikipedia.org]. Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.

    While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking.

    More than 1,300 miles of the barrier has been erected in the six years since building began. Snaking through jungles, rivers and the villages of five states, Delhi's floodlit, 12ft double fence packed with razor wire will render India a fortress against her neighbour.

    This is not intended as flamebait, nor as a political rant. Just thought it might be useful to look at the steps other countries have been taking to combat unapproved/illegal immigration into their borders...probably from more hostile neighbors.

    I for one think each piece of technology has it's own place where it works well. Just because we have the technology to stream live video via the intarw3b doesn't mean it can replace a relatively low-cost hard barrier (agreed though that the FTA claims this is a temporary solution).

  • by foniksonik (573572) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:23AM (#15453724) Homepage Journal
    You know you're out there, you know you got suckered into buying a cheap $10 or $20 wireless webcam from X10 back in the late 90s.... now we all have a way to redeem ourselves ;-p

    If we all dig out our old, useless X10s and donate them to the Fed, we can surely cover the entire border with motion activated, web enabled video surveillance... there has got to be millions of these little buggers out there... all the fed would have to do is wire them up.

  • There is no need to spend billions on a fence or other border devices. All that is needed is a crackdown on the demand side of the equation. Shut down a few businesses that hire illegal workers, and the demand for them will dry up overnight. Far fewer illegal immigrants will spend the time to come here if there are no jobs for them.
  • The Bush administration has announced that they are planning to protect New Orleans from another hurricane with millions of pasta strainers. A senior official was quotes as saying "We figure as long as we make a good show of having a ton of plastic bowls with holes in them on the levees the water will be discouraged and stay in the Gulf of Mexico."
  • I guess you americans already have enough gardeners, farm helpers, construction workers and waiters, eh? truly, the way the US and Mexico act belies the official discourse about both countries being friends and associates. Sadly I believe we're burdened by two of the single most idiotic presidents in history, George W. Bush and Vicente Fox. Luckily for us Mexicans, Fox is leaving office this december. Hopefully whoever the new president is, will have a more sensible (at *all* sensible) foreign policy as wel
  • Illegal immigration is unfair to folks from other countries like China and India and other regions like South America, Africa, and SE Asia. These other folks can't just jump a fence or hike a few miles. They should have the same opportunities to immigrate to America as folks from Mexico if they want.

    The law needs to be changed to make illegal immigration difficult and legal immigration a lot easier. Border enforcement is necessary for that.
  • by misleb (129952) on Friday June 02, 2006 @10:38AM (#15453867)
    Wouldn't it be easier to just to hand over Texas to Mexico? I know I wouldn't miss it.

    -matthew
  • Cam Girl Wages Plummit
  • Kinky for Governor [kinkyfriedman.com]. Why the hell not?
  • Geeks with guns.
  • by misanthrope101 (253915) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:09AM (#15454185)
    I would love to have the immigration situation actually "resolved." Americans are in some heavy denial about how dependent the economy is on illegal, cheap immigrant labor. The Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished. Restaurants? Hotels? Ranches? Farms? If all these demonized immigrants just vanished the people would realize in short order why nothing was ever done about it before, despite all the big talk. Racism sells, but money is what matters.

    Wait till people are paying $8 for a head of lettuce, and the light just may go on. If ranchers and restaurants actually paid ALL of their employees a legal wage, complete with all the taxes, insurance, etc, prices have to go up. I'm all for the immigrants--the poor bastards have been exploited for too long. I hope, for their own sake, that the problem is "fixed" long enough for people to realize how much we depend on their existence. If the immigtants just stopped coming, the entire US economy would have to undergo some serious readjustment.

    I'm not saying it would crash, but a steady supply of cheap, exploitable, never-talk-back labor has been taken for granted probably for as long as the US has been a nation.

    • he Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished. Restaurants? Hotels? Ranches? Farms? If all these demonized immigrants just vanished the people would realize in short order why nothing was ever done about it before, despite all the big talk. Racism sells, but money is what matters.

      So who's doing all those jobs in Hawaii, which has a very low percentage of illegals? How about North Dakota? Wisconsin? High-illegal states like Texas and Califor

  • by Hellboy0101 (680494) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:11AM (#15454202)

    Let's not forget that not one, NOT ONE terrorist has EVER been caught crossing the US-Mexican border. However, the potential LAX bomber was caught trying to cross over into the US from Canada (turns steely glare directly north).

    According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], the US has a laughingly low number of border patrol agents on the northern border.

    From TFA: "The United State posts more than five agents per mile across our southern border. By contrast, we post less than one agent every five miles across our northern border. What's more, as the United States has cut off urban crossing points in places such as El Paso and San Diego, it has forced many illegal immigrants to go through the Arizona desert -- a brutal journey, particularly for someone with no knowledge of the terrain. Would-be terrorists coming from Canada are not only less likely to be caught, they are less likely to die along the way.

    There also happen to be many more potential jihadists in Canada. Unlike Mexico, with its negligible Arab and Muslim population, Canada in recent decades has welcomed large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East. And while the vast majority are law-abiding, Canadian authorities estimate that roughly 50 terrorist groups operate in the country. In their study, Leiken and Brooke identify three suspected terrorists who have tried to enter the United states from Canada, including Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian native arrested in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport."

    I love my country, but seriously, this is just so out of hand now. To paraphrase The Talking Heads: "We're on a road to nowhere."

  • Xenophobe? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caffeinatedOnline (926067) on Friday June 02, 2006 @11:19AM (#15454284) Homepage
    I live in Arizona, and the illegal immigrant problem is reaching epic proportions. My wife works for the state health department, and the numbers that she mentions on how much it costs the taxpayers to subsidize these illegal aliens in just Arizona is mind blowing.

    Just looking at a report on the Center for Immigrant Studies website http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalcoverage.ht ml/ [cis.org] mentions that it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.
    • Re:Xenophobe? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)
      "...US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens"

      And how much miney goes into SSN that will never be collected by these illegal aliens?
      Oh, and not all illegal aliens are low wage migrant workers.
      Any motivated* illegal alien will start there own business, pay taxes(you don't need an SSN to pay taxes), and buy stuff.

      My point is: Don';t look at one data point and determin something is bad. Look at as many as you can, then think for yourself.

      *Most people that cross a ri
    • Re:Xenophobe? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by swillden (191260) *

      it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.

      Your tax dollars... and theirs too.

      Illegal immigrants pay taxes, too, and they often pay more in taxes relative to their income than legal immigrants and citizens, because they don't dare file a tax return to get their refund back. Of course, that only applies in the cases where the employer actually submits W-2s or similar to the IRS, but in the other c

Shortest distance between two jokes = A straight line

Working...