Your extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proof. Because that contradict what research show; the correlation between crime and immigration is a society net positive (of course anything involving humans is never a 100% anything, so there will always be exceptions, e.g. some persons result in a society net negative, but the overall effect is positive).
From the abstract of the paper Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration: Evidence across four decades:
Research has shown little support for the enduring proposition that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Although classical criminological and neoclassical economic theories would predict immigration to increase crime, most empirical research shows quite the opposite. We investigate the immigration-crime relationship among metropolitan areas over a 40 year period from 1970 to 2010. Our goal is to describe the ongoing and changing association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes. Our results indicate that immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period.
But even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What cirterias did he/she/they use for that? How thorogh were he/she/they in gathering decition material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
I'm not an economist, but I would have thought a cashless society makes little difference to the level of government control. Cash is controlled by the government anyway -
But the economics is besides the point. If for instance the government of North Korea had the possibility to track all economic transactions between all the people in the country because they were digital, do you think that would lead to fewer or more arrests of political dissents? If the economy in North Korea was cashless, do you think that would lead to fewer or more cases of torture? Killings? Would it be possible for a group of political dissents to meet each other on a weekend if it were impossible to move anywhere without leaving traces like everyone buying bus/train tickets to the same place, etc?
And while it is easy to pick on North Korea as a worst in class example, something far away, it is worth considering what the effects might be in countries that like to consider themselves best in class with regards to democracy and freedom for its citizens. Imagine if you suddenly without your knowledge are placed on a no-fly list because you have bought a few things from a country that the government has deemed evil, terrorist, communist or some other fashionable witch hunt term. Or perhaps you just have bought something from somebody else that have traded with those countries. This is just what might already happen today. The important thing is to imagine the potential for abuse and then make sure that there always is a non-digital alternative available.
... after they have been found guilty (which is what not been resolved means)
No, it cannot mean that, because that is already covered in point a)
a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
Are you claiming that "been found guilty" is somehow different from "convicted" and needs a separate listing?
And for more hints of how little respect for juridical principles he has, look no further than point c)
(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
So no charge necessary. No conviction necessary. Zero defence possibility. Just as long as some unaccountable employee in the Secretary of Homeland Security, or perhaps a TSA employee, some contractor or whoever has deemed that some alien has committed a chargeable criminal offense that's good enough.
Also notice that the phrase "alternative facts" was delivered by his staff, so it works as a loyalty test to see how far they are willing to support him even though they are asked to do outrageous things.
Such loyalty testing might be found in environments driven by fear and uncertainty. Similarly to how a criminal gang leader might ask new members to do something outrageous like torturing or killing someone to test them, and also make them dependent on the leader for protection.
This doesn't sound like an administration that's particularly worried about adhering to the letter of the law.
No shit! From the order:
the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by
..., as well as removable aliens who: ... (b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
From the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
No person shall
... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
Either Trump is completely ignorant of justice principles like not punishing a person without there being an actual judgment or he simply does not care. Sadly, for him I think it is a combination of both. This is even worse than guilty until proven innocent, this is charged equals guilty without any possibility for innocence.
If you are implying that long work hours like common in USA makes it easier for people people to get rich, that is demonstrably false. Norway have more millionaires per capita than USA. It even has more billionaires per capita than USA. And we have 37.5 hours per week as standard, just 2.5 hours more than the French.
Also notice that in Norway the government intervenes with many things that you probably think classifies as "nanny state". And we have higher much taxes. Despite of this we have more rich people than you.
Recommended watch: TEDx talk Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? by Harald Eia.
... if they either bought the sun ...
Too late, Oracle already did that...
Just because evidence was obtained by illegal means such as a search without a warrant doesn't mean that the evidence is untrue. There has been more than one trial in the US where officers found a murder weapon or other evidence to convict a person of murder and then the conviction is overturned, not because the evidence was wrong but the officers didn't have the right paperwork.
The idea that illegally obtained evidence should not be valid is a dishonour of justice. Breaking the law to obtain it is not right either, however that is a separate issue and it should be handled like any other law violation. If an officer searches someone's apartment without a proper warrant he/she should be charged with burglary.
To put things in perspective: The problem "It is bothersome to carry all the cash I have" has to be the ultimate first world problem. Seriously! Control question: Can you name one single first world problem that is more ultimate than this?
And secondly, an economic system which allows for a government to spy on every single transaction will be an enormous gift to totalitarian regimes. We as people living in fairly free countries have a responsibility to keep cash as a fully functional alternative and not export such gift to governments violating human rights and persecuting dissidents. Regardless of the lack of "modern" feel to it, the (minor) cost of doing this, or any other reason.
They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos