Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

A DNA Database For All U.S. Workers? 625

fragmer writes "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested a plan on Wednesday that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers. The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will 'uniquely identify the person' applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged. Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the Social Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A DNA Database For All U.S. Workers?

Comments Filter:
  • Oh Orwell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:19PM (#15416373)
    The power lies with the proles.
  • by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:19PM (#15416374) Homepage
    "Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the Social Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue."

    Just by saying that, he's acknowledging that its a civil liberties issue.
  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) * on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:21PM (#15416384) Homepage Journal
    politicians it seems ; Big Brother Syndrome

    A day does not pass without some u.s. politician or lawmaker coming up with an idea that would be a step on the road that will turn u.s. people into slave labor.
  • by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:22PM (#15416393)
    Requiring all Jewish residents to register as such and wear a Star of David on their shirts is also just a purely administrative aid, to stop people cheating the system and could never be used as a real civil liberties issue either.

    I wish people would learn that we can trust the government simply because they tell us we can.
  • Privacy Violation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by massivefoot ( 922746 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:24PM (#15416403)
    Well I would certainly feel that my privacy was being violated. My DNA is private, thank you very much, and the state most certainly does not have a right to the details of it. It would be nice to think that this is the sort of suggestion that would lose a politician his job, but I have a bad feeling that some will find it rather popular.
  • by glyph42 ( 315631 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:24PM (#15416404) Homepage Journal
    Any database that allows people to determine the identities of all the people at any scene, whether it is a crime scene or otherwise, is a civil liberties issue. You were at WHAT social gathering? With WHOM? Now we're going to all have to start behaving like Ethan Hawke in GATTACA, scrubbing off all our dead skin cells before we go out.
  • it is a civil liberties issue.

    When will gov't realise this?

  • Great plan (Score:2, Insightful)

    by keyrat rafa ( 856668 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:37PM (#15416481) Homepage
    "The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will 'uniquely identify the person' applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged."

    Oh great, another plan where we track innocent people in an effort to find the guilty ones. Maybe if they chose opposite strategies they wouldn't be met with such public opposition.
  • by phoenix.bam! ( 642635 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:38PM (#15416483)
    The employers who bother to ask for an SS card or even go as far as to check the number are not the problem. Even if the workers are illegal they are paying taxes so that's at least a good thing. The only crime is being in the US illegally.

    The actual problem are the employers hiring illegals and paying them under the table.

    The proposed program will only harm actual tax paying workers by collecting informatino that will only help to make them suspects in crimes.

    "Why was your fingerprint on the telephone in that bedroom?" "Because I stayed at a holiday inn this weekend."
  • by David Gould ( 4938 ) <> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:45PM (#15416517) Homepage

    Perhaps a better solution would be to simply tattoo a serial number on everybody's arm -- it'd be functionally equivalent, but much cheaper to implement.

  • by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:46PM (#15416523) Journal
    Nice try at pretending that only Republicans are at fault here. Don't fall for the shell game. Republicans and Democrats are just two wings of the ruling party.

  • Re:If anything... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:47PM (#15416528)

    If anything, we should have learned from the disaster that the use of our social security number has become. It started out with a use that was extremely limited in scope, and has since become a nearly universal identifier for all kinds of information about us- all without our permission, and in many cases, our knowledge. The proliferation of its abuse is now why we're faced with issues like identity theft.

    This point cannot be emphasized enough: once something like this becomes a problem, it's too late. Have you seen any "solution" to identity theft? Didn't think so. The only effective response is to slam the door closed on these kinds of ideas, and weld it shut.
  • by enitime ( 964946 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:48PM (#15416529)
    "DNA and fingerprint technology [...] will 'uniquely identify the person'"

    Good point though. I wonder how the police deal with DNA evidence for twins. I very much doubt their DNA testing is sufficiently advanced to pick up the minor differences in DNA twins have. I guess they have to hope for fingerprints.

    Someone should ask for a DNA sample from mayor Bloomberg. If he has nothing to hide, why not give it to the public? We can test for all kinds of diseases, maybe see if he's predisposed to any mental illness. Would people (re-)elect someone with a proven predisposition for psychotic behaviour?

  • Re:I'm for it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:51PM (#15416545) Journal
    The problem I've heard mentioned is that with any biological marker, as soon as someone figures out how to fake it you're screwed.

    There's no need to fake the biometric data. Breaking into whatever machine hosts the database is quite sufficient.

    If this system ever comes to pass, it would be a very appropriate countermeasure to make the DNA of every legislator who voted for it come up as a terrorist or sex offender.

  • by modecx ( 130548 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:51PM (#15416548)
    Frankly, I'm slightly more comfortable with some illegal immigrant using my SSN and personal information to get a job or even a criminal using my information to milk my bank accounts than I am with the government building a fingerprint and DNA database "to track workers".
  • Re:Sounds Familiar (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zavala ( 131259 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @01:57PM (#15416582)
    Is it really? Once you're using DNA as a method of identification and society has turned a blind eye, how much longer will it be before companies fire people who are predisposed to cancer, mental illness, or any other genetic trait that a company might find unprofitable for their workforce to have.
  • Re:Sounds Familiar (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TomHandy ( 578620 ) <tomhandy@gmail.3.14159com minus pi> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:03PM (#15416600)
    I think I see why they brought it up though. It's been a while since I've seen Gattaca, but as I recall, it did sort of make the point about where things would eventually go once you started doing this kind of thing. Gattaca seemed to propose a future where the initial genetic identification and modification was relatively harmless (using it for pretty good things like getting rid of diseases and genetic defects, etc.), which eventually led to a society built around getting rid of defective people as a whole or making life difficult for them. I think the point the above poster was making would be that you can start out with just one piece of the puzzle (i.e. a genetic database of every worker in the US), and it could end up being the framework for something much worse.
  • Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:04PM (#15416607)
    > Uh, we support the basic idea. How is DNA different than a finger print or photo?

    How is asking your name different from demanding your driver's license?
    How is patting you down different from a strip search?
    How is knowing your address different from entering and searching your home?

    It's a 4th Amendment issue at the very least. The general principle is that you don't target *everybody* for investigation just so you can catch a few. Constitutionally you have to have specific reasons to suspect criminal behavior in order to detain and/or search someone.
  • by mikelieman ( 35628 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:11PM (#15416633) Homepage
    When we withheld due process from the VERY FIRST PERSON, we became EXACTLY as bad and evil as and Nazi.

    The ONLY differences being methods and bodycount.

    To the person tied to a chair and beaten to death, or marched into the gas chamber, it doesn't matter that "there's only one"...

  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:20PM (#15416671)

    Although there isn't much real difference between issuing someone a Social Security card and tattooing that number upon his body ...

    Yeah, almost everyone can see the difference between issueing a card with a number to a person ... and ... linking that person's body (via tattoos or DNA or fingerprints) to any government authorization.

    Almost everyone. Fascism is a state of mind. It is when you value people's Freedom less than the perceived "efficiency" of your Government.

    The government serves the People.

    The People do not serve the Government.
  • by Ulrich Hobelmann ( 861309 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:31PM (#15416710) Journal
    You must be young, an idealist, or both. The state isn't comprised of Good people. In all probability government attracts far more bad, power-hungry people than it attracts good people.

    The military never overthrows a government, even if the commands given it might be illegal or immoral (the rule usually is: obey or be shot). Just go read a history book on that one.

    Democracy cannot guarantee that people have the power. The only thing that keeps current government from going totally fascist is that people would rise up against them (so in a sense there's a democratic element that prevents state dominion). As soon as the military/police power is strong enough (and enough Americans stop owning guns), they can and will go further.
  • by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:33PM (#15416718) Homepage Journal
    They DO realize it.

    It's the princple of: Tell a lie loud enough, often enough and long enough and the people will eventually believe it to be true."

    Most people believe the Patriot Act is necessary and constitutional. Why should they not buy this new lie? It pisses me off that even many small-government conservatives believe that limiting rights in exchange for a vague promise of safety is necessary, let alone even remotely acceptable.
  • by Shelled ( 81123 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:38PM (#15416731)
    Good idea. Let's test it on the families of politicians first. They believe most strongly in the concept.
  • by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @02:44PM (#15416752) Homepage Journal
    Actually we have term limits already; it's called an election.

    Unfortunately, much like mod points, people throw their vote away because their candidate is "cute" or "likeable" despite the fact that he's a corrupt piece of shit.
  • by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:02PM (#15416822) Homepage
    Revolutions shouldnt be neccesary (which is good, because sicne the age of the pitchfork has changed to the age of the apache helicopter, peasant revolts have got waaaay harder). What is needed is a more participatory democracy. You need
    a) everyone to vote
    b) every vote to count
    c) people to vote based on impartial information

    A) can be done by legal means, b) requires proportional representation and c) requires major shakeups in party funding, political advertising etc.

    Nobody has this perfect, but australians HAVE to vote by law, and even the almost-as-bad-as-the-us UK has a ban on political TV and radio adverts. I like to think that acts as a good limit to the extent to which politicians can brain wash us into believeing what they say.

    People don't see electoral reform as a major issue, but I'd suggest it is THE issue, because once its fixed, the chances of getting everything else fixed is totally transformed.
  • by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311@yahoo.GAUSScom minus math_god> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @03:25PM (#15416912) Homepage
    Actually, power lies with guns (as it always has), whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive that it is the Duty of the People to alter or abolish it.

    You're an idiot, and this is just an assaninely stupid statement.

    What you seem to have missed out on is that in 1776, the guns the populace had and the guns the government had were the same, so the side that won was pretty much based on how many people you had, influenced by your ability to pay them, and their emotional/economic investment in the fight.

    In modern day resistence, guns are so useless that they're only used against extremely poor governments. You might be able to stage a revolution in the Congo with guns, hell, you can even do it with enough people and some machetes, but there is just no way that you can keep a government like the US government honest with the treat of a firearm. The government is not threatened by a firearm - it is useless against their tank, and it is especially useless after the government has blown up your car.

    Iraqi insurgents have guns. IRA had guns. Hamas has guns. What do these groups do with guns? They try to AVOID using them, because when they make use guns they are visible, and when they are visible people can drop a bomb on them. A gun is useless when your enemy is just going to send a missile into your apartment if they know where you are. They know that guns don't work, which is why they use bombs. Look at the number of Americans killed in Iraq by IED vs. firearm.

    Even with bombs, you're not going to get what you want; all you succeed at doing is creating an environment of poor security, which leads to a poor economy. Even in a poor economy, the government is still better off than the populace. Once you've let the government get out of hand, it's too late: The best you can do is make your economy so bad that your government becomes militarily weak enough that they provoke someone to come and invade you.

    There's a name for places like that: Bosnia.

    Americans must VIGILENTLY protect and excercise their democratic rights to keep the government honest. If it comes time to use guns, we're fucked.
  • by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @04:10PM (#15417101) Homepage
    You must be young, an idealist, or both...The military never overthrows a government, even if the commands given it might be illegal or immoral (the rule usually is: obey or be shot). Just go read a history book on that one.

    Indeed, you should pick up a book, too. Obviously enough, it is young idealist army officers who usually instigate a coup.

    Look at Turkey -- the military has overthrown the government at least 3 times in the last 50 years, always to restore the ideals the current nation was founded on. Anytime the government comes too directly under the sway of religious zealots, the military steps in and restores secular democracy, to widespread popular support. The Army is in fact the most trusted arm of government, and as such it attracts many of the best and brightest idealists who are proud of their responsibility.

    What is particularly amusing is that you chastize the original poster for being such a silly young idealist, then go on to declare governments are filled only with conniving assholes, but nowhere do you seem to recognize that it is only by pointlessly shitting on idealism and hope that people become conniving assholes. Physician, heal thyself.
  • Iraqi insurgents HAVE guns. They have PILES of guns. They *CHOOSE* not to use them because they ARE NOT EFFECTIVE.

    The insurgents would be doing us a HUGE FAVOR if they started using guns. Why? Because then we would know who the insurgents were - they're the guys shooting at us - and we'd know where they are - in the building the bullets are coming from! Then we just drop a bomb on the building, problem solved.

    Instead, the insurgents avoid using guns and instead use bombs. Why? Because when a bomb kills your troops, the bomb doesn't tell you who or where the insurgent is.

    That's the problem with you gun nuts - you have absolutely no concept of tactics. You think that "Oo, I can shoot the other guy, I win!" The other guy is thinking "Oo, I can drop a bomb on the other guy, I win!" and HE is right.

    Insurgents in Iraq are not causing all this damage DESPITE not using guns, they're causing it BECAUSE they don't use guns.

    The insurgents who thought they could fight the US with guns are already dead. Only the insurgents who use bombs are left, because they're never around to be killed.
  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @04:59PM (#15417374) Homepage Journal
    Last I checked assassination were mainly done with guns.

    In a revolution those who are going against the government are generally mixed in with the masses, and are difficult to just hit with nukes and missiles and things.

    I agree that if it comes to using guns we're fucked, but infact both the government and the people are fucked at that point. It would result in total collapse of the system and it would take a great deal of time to repair. If the revolutionaries win, then hopefully the rebuild the system better. If the tyrannical government wins then hopefully they learn their less and either prevent revolution from happening again or they adjust their system into one that better serves it's people.

    Guns are just one of many tools used to resist. Peaceful protests, letter writing campaigns and the such should be the first choice. Bombs, knives, poison, missiles, guns, lynchings, etc are the last resort. But they are effective. It is extremely demoralizing for a military to fight in a civil war. even if the military out guns and out mans the resistance it's not a "sure thing". Generally a resistance has mobility on it's side, but there are many other factors to consider.
  • by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @05:00PM (#15417379)
    The best you can do is make your economy so bad that your government becomes militarily weak enough that they provoke someone to come and invade you.

    You mean... Like spending less than $50,000 to get your minions to fly a plane into a building in which makes the enemy's people go dumb-walled and think by spending their country into oblivion and invading other countries that it will somehow solve a problem that could have been fixed by just installing a hundred dollar lock on all the cockpits doors?

    I'm being sarcastic, but by all accounts it appears that if nothing else, terrorism has done its job. It has made us Americans over react and in effect kill ourselves in the process. (Curing the disease by killing the patient and what not.) I suppose we might be able to recover from the $9 trillion worth of debt and we might be able to recover our freedoms and we just might be able to live like things were before 9/11 (you know... no hassle at the airports... banking without having massive security checks... wiretaps... things like that), but I'm not holding my breath.

    And yes... I agree with you. A crazy man with a hunting rifle is no match for a B-52 and a guided missile.
  • by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @05:04PM (#15417394)
    I'd argue that a single, well-placed bullet could do a lot more damage than 10 bombs that missed their target. Bullets are for surgical precision, bombs are for propagating widespread destruction and fear. Ever wonder how it is that Bin Laden escaped? Perhaps it was too little emphasis on surgical precision, too much reliance on bombs.
  • your point being? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ( 807087 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @06:00PM (#15417645)
    would these be the same people that were guards at abu ghraib? or that are patroling gitmo? or murdered iraqi civilians execution style? and so on...
  • by johansalk ( 818687 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @06:31PM (#15417774)
    You're right. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan had guns and, by golly, the bravest men any battlefield might've seen. What happened to them? B-52s flying in round-the-world-trips carpet-bombed them and their entire camp areas into oblivion. What remained of them wherever they were encountered in skirmishes were within hours of battle starting anihilated by rockets coming from submarines emerging thousands of miles away in the middle of the ocean and then submerging again. How can you fight that?! If Al-Qaeda fighters, tough, hardened, passionate and insane, couldn't do it, then I very much doubt an American civil movement could; Americans were reared on an everyman-for-himself capitalist culture, and good luck to anyone who may try to summon in them the sort of passion, irrational dedication and resolve required for a revolution. You can't even convince Americans to care enough about their fellow citizens to adopt universal healthcare, let alone a revolution. And if anyone thinks the US government won't use violence to suppress internal dissent, then look back at what they did to the leftist movements of the 1960s, they broke their back, they used live amunition on campus grounds to shoot demonstrators.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 27, 2006 @07:02PM (#15417909)
    No, but they would act the same against 'traitor terrorist supporters that want to destroy our way of life'. Besides, what happens to anyone in the military disobeying direct orders at the time of war (on terrorism, in this case)? I recall German troops in the 1930's had no problem arresting German citizens that were sent to 'Re-education' camps (those would be 'Freedom' camps today).

    I mean, the Branch Davidians at Waco, TX were Americans, and harmless enough at that, and look what happened to them. Why do you think anything else would happen to the 'un-American traitor terrorists'?

    As to previous posts, the Minutemen were better trained (most hunted on a daily basis, better supplies and equipment, knew terrain, had a REASON to fight) than the UK army (a bunch of parrot-dressed untrained peasants, starved on the ships for 3 weeks, no marksmanship skills, unmotivated).

    It is wrong to use the Revolutionary War for an analogy, a better example is the Polish Ghetto uprising under Nazis... I mean, those Jews did have guns thorough the roof and still got slaughtered by the professional army (and that was 60 years ago, no cruise missiles, AWACs, night vision, and sattelites for the army then).

    Today, the army is far far better trained and equipped than the civilian insurgents. One on one, a Michigan militia fighter might match a G.I., but in context of deployment, a single army solder is worth some 1,000 militia... Why? But because a G.I. has mobility, coordination, and ability to overwhelm at will, air support (bombers, AWACs, IR-sensor drones, cruise missiles), armor (APCs, tanks, helicopters, artillery, mortars, etc), and most importantly intell and command-and control structure.

    So yeah, the moment the army knows who the bad guy is, that bad guy is dead. And how many AKs or ARs you stashed away under your floor boards does not matter when a cruise missile comes a-knocking. How well you know terrain is irrelevant when a Predator drone in IR mode can see a badger-size target within a 30 mile radius, and can call in support in seconds.

    Perhaps the only venue where you even have to outclass the military is within large urban centers where the army is concerned about the colateral damage. If it gets to the point where the army is not concerned, you will have another Nagasaki, (and 'terrorists' will get the 'credit', and the admin. will get an even larger blank cheque to cash with what they do to the 'traitors').

    You gotta be a fucking idiot to claim you can outgun a U.S. army these days, is what I am saying.
  • by modecx ( 130548 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @07:47PM (#15418086)
    guns don't do much good when...your opposition has clusterbombs and cruise missiles.

    You can't huh? Is that why the Iraqui Insurgents are still mostly fine and dandy? Is that why nobody has claimed the $10 Mil bounty on one of the leaders' head? Is that why our soldiers keep getting their asses blown up by a roadside bomb that cost less than $5 to make?

    Cruise missiles are good for point targets, to destroy something without causing massive collateral damage. They're so expensive that it dosen't make sense to use them en masse... And cluster bombs are for all intents and purposes, weapons of (a little mass) destruction. If you want to take out an area 100x70 meters, that's what they're good for.

    A network of like-minded people is all that it takes to counter all of the billions and billions of dollars that all of the first-world governments combined have spent on weapons in the last 50 years. There will never be anything more effective to counter such a group but troops pounding the pavement... That is, unless they are willing to destroy every living thing at their target site...
  • Re:What success? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311@yahoo.GAUSScom minus math_god> on Saturday May 27, 2006 @09:44PM (#15418450) Homepage
    Saying that the governments in the US and Birtian possibly changing is due to the insurgency in Iraq is about as valid as saying the governments in Germany, France, etc, didn't support the invasion because of the insurgency in Iraq, even though the insurgency hadn't happened yet.

    Many people thought that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Those people had a government that did not reflect that opinion - in the US, partly because people vote on other issues (like gun control or abortion) that are the most important to them and get you a government that likes to invade other countries as a consequence.

    Hell, the government in the US *HAS* to change if for no other reason than that Bush's term limits are up. It's even looking likely that we might get a presidential race between someone like Feingold and McCain - can you imagine that? Each party fielding a rational, intelligent candidate?

    Anyway, even if your (or their) definition of success is "get rid of hated US government", they still are failing: At best, they've substitted one hated government for another. Even if Bush gets ousted by a Democrat, the American troops arn't going anywhere - we broke it, we've bought it. The only thing dumber than invading Iraq would be to leave it without finishing the job.

    The truth is, though, that THEIR definition of success isn't even political change. Their definition of success is "Condutct/die in a holy war." If you gave many of these guys the choice between wiping the US off the face of the earth and going home to farm with their family, OR continuing a holy war, many of them would find a way to continue a holy war.

    That was the big mistake the US made in invading Iraq: We gave the Arab "freedom fighters" a way to fight a holy war locally.
  • nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Saturday May 27, 2006 @11:08PM (#15418740) Homepage Journal
    Just take a look at the architects of the Iraqi invasion and it's biggest backers - all people that did not serve in the military (many took multiple deferments such as Cheney) and do not have family members serving in Iraq.

    If Bush, Cheney, Rummsfield and GOP leaders in Congress all had sons or daughters in the service who would have been on the front lines, maybe they really would have treated war as a last resort rather than planning on invading Iraq from day 1. Maybe they would have made plans to secure the country after ousting Saddam instead of ignoring historians who predicted violent resistance to any occupation. Maybe they would have been a little less eager to legalize tourture if they knew their family members could be patrolling the streets of Baghdad and the information leaked out. Invading Iran might not even be on the table of discussion if it meant sending Jr. out on his 4th tour of duty. But no, they've only risked other peoples lives, other peoples sons and daughters.

    Far from being a "tired argument", you could hardly find one more relevant.
  • by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @07:45AM (#15419905)
    "Terrorists did a HUGE amount of damage to the UK government and over a LONG period of time."

    Except Ulster is still part of the UK and the IRA seems to spend more time killing other Irish than agents of the Crown. And regardless of what "damage" may have been done to the UK, it's kinda hard to have a popular uprising when you lose the "hearts and minds" of the people, or did you not notice the warm reception Gerry Adams has been getting in the US recently?

    Long term, terrorism accomplishes little but tarnishing your own cause as you establish for yourself little more than warlords with a reputation for thuggey (you don't see many Westerners asking for Chechen independence any more, do you?). If you want a successful revolution, you get yourselves uniforms and follow the laws of war, otherwise there's no reason for anybody (friend or foe) to believe that the people building suitcase bombs to support "independence" today won't be building them to support their own personal cause tomorrow.
  • Re:Oh Orwell (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BalanceOfJudgement ( 962905 ) on Sunday May 28, 2006 @11:28AM (#15420534) Homepage
    "Unless we wish the US to be flooded with cheap illegal immigrant labor to the point where there is no benefit to being on our side of the border, methods of excluding illegal immigrants must be found and used."

    You should be ashamed of yourself. Go ahead, be ashamed. I better see your head hanging. There you go.

    Statements of such "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" (FUD) are idiotic and counter productive. By your reasoning, the country is ALREADY overrun with cheap illegal immigrant labor and the country is a ghetto hell hole.

    Oh, wait, it isn't. That's because you assume that the lack of draconian, totalitarian measures constitutes free reign for illegal immigration. It's the under-educated, uninformed like yourself that have led this country to have so damn many right-wing fascists and I for one am so sick and tired of even being aware that people like you exist.

    Don't bother replying, as this is the only exchange I intend to have with you.

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde