[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I typed are instead of and.

Are you telling me you couldn't see that simple typo and put it together?

I wanted to make sure I understood you better so I wouldn't be projecting�, being silly�, and the rest of your vocabulary.

Support what things?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
It's good that you can laugh at that

But could you elaborate(using words) was was so funny? And why this won't affect you in any way?

1st of all, if you haven't noticed...we don't answer to the UN.

2. We only jail enemies of the state. Are you inferring that you would be an enemy of the state? (Hint: Just because you are Muslim, you aren't considered to be an enemy of the state...so relax. Muslims enjoy freedom in the US)

3. Your self importance absolutely kills me.

4. You live in Iceland.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Well, yes. It is rather naive, I suppose. And I realize that the EU does enforce its borders. But it also wants to expand those borders by having more countries join. Some day, perhaps Turkey will be part of the EU. And then, perhaps Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, &c. Or, if not the EU, then some other body like it.

And even if this doesn't happen, why do borders matter? Do they have to matter? For taxation purposes, obviously, it's important to have a clear idea of where someone works and lives, but if I decide I want to go spend a weekend in Taiwan, why shouldn't I be able to just buy a plane ticket and go to Taiwan (maybe I can, I have no idea how it works with Taiwan, but it could just as easily be China where I can't do that)? If I want to move to Taiwan, why shouldn't I be able to just buy a house in Taiwan, pack up my stuff, move there, and start paying my taxes to the Taiwanese government instead of the US government? What good does the idea of nationality do us? What good does it do to classify some people as 'foreigners'?

First, an aside. I don't think you are going to see an infinite expansion of the EU. And I doubt that the EU is going to form much of a model in the rest of the world. If anything, the worldwide trend is toward devolution into smaller nations, not unification into larger ones.

Your main philosophical point could be easily expanded into a book to answer. So being really broad, what states and their borders do is define a political community where people have agreed to live together according to certain agreed principles and compromises among themselves. This is essentially the Lockean view, but I think it is still valid. What a border does is defines the limits of the community and who can tell the members of the community how to live their lives. The beauty of it is that it allows people in different communities to live their lives somewhat differently from one another.

Most people, of course, are simply born into a community. But millions emigrate, and in a way, I'm one of them. I very much appreciate our borders, because it let me choose to live my life in the community I chose and not to be dictated to by another community that I left. Not that life is perfect here, of course. But it's where I'm happy to be. That's a human freedom that comes as a consequence of having borders. It lets you cross them.

States, of course, also have a role of protecting their citizens. If you travel to North Korea and are arrested and tortured, you would expect the US to take an interest in your case. Why? because you are a US National. You belong to your country (and vice versa) wherever you are. This is so basic that the right to nationality is considered a fundamental human right, enshrined in International UN covenants worshipped by liberals the world over.

States also have the duty to defend their populations when they are at home. That's the basic issue here. You have border controls to keep the bad people at bay basically so you don't have to bring that defense to the communities where people live. If you know the threat is external, then you have an obligation to keep that threat out before it "escapes" into the community. Search people at the borders, which you know they would have to cross at some point, and you don't have to make a random dragnet at home. Police the borders, and you don't have to have a police state.

There are also, of course, other things you might want to keep out of your country as well as terrorists. Drugs, illegal immigrants, agricultural pests, endangered animals being smuggled, you name it. Some of the things that cross borders you want to keep out entirely. Some of them you want to just tax.

In some cases, you might also want to check things going out of your borders. Having border controls can make you a good neighbor.

[Logic]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Please Hammer, don't hurt 'em!

Yes, I do get your point and I do understand your concerns. But to say that we will probably get hurt if you publish and then sell your research to one multinational drug company instead of another is funny.

I know your research may be important, and you may have spent long, coffee fueled hours on it... but c'mon.

Get some sleep, you mad scientist, you.

We will see in the next few years won't we

Unfortunately I can't elaborate on what exactly I'm working at the moment but I can tell you that if I'm correct and it continues to go according to plan it will be a huge discovery. I was lucky enough to stumble upon something quite remarkable and work from there. Now I just have to finish the damn school!!!

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1st of all, if you haven't noticed...we don't answer to the UN.

I know, and that is one of the reasons I want the US out of the UN. I want your veto canceled since you don't think UN is worth anything.

2. We only jail enemies of the state. Are you inferring that you would be an enemy of the state? (Hint: Just because you are Muslim, you aren't considered to be an enemy of the state...so relax. Muslims enjoy freedom in the US)

It's sad that you have such an enormous belief in your system that you believe no mistakes will be done. Do you also think that not one person has been executed in the US who were innocent?

3. Your self importance absolutely kills me.

if only.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I said this is what will happen because I won't go to the US. And I know you might not believe that people won't make any difference in the world, but that is something you have to fix yourself in your life. I will and have made a difference.

4. You live in Iceland.

?

[quandarry]

quote:
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah logic, it's all the USs fault you are your family support those things.

How dare them

smoking pot causes grammer malfunction...

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1st of all, if you haven't noticed...we don't answer to the UN.

Oh, we noticed. We also noticed you have no problem with righteously waving U.N. resolutions around when you want a mandate to kick off a war in the Middle East...

Hmmm...



(edited for spelling)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Oh, we noticed. We also noticed you have no problem with righteously waving U.N. resolutions around when you want a mandate to kick off a war in the Middle Eastern...

Hmmm...

curious thing, that, isn't it?

They are also not averse to asking the UN to clean up the messes they make, after its already gone too far.....

Hmmmm...

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, an aside. I don't think you are going to see an infinite expansion of the EU. And I doubt that the EU is going to form much of a model in the rest of the world. If anything, the worldwide trend is toward devolution into smaller nations, not unification into larger ones.

Your main philosophical point could be easily expanded into a book to answer. So being really broad, what states and their borders do is define a political community where people have agreed to live together according to certain agreed principles and compromises among themselves. This is essentially the Lockean view, but I think it is still valid. What a border does is defines the limits of the community and who can tell the members of the community how to live their lives. The beauty of it is that it allows people in different communities to live their lives somewhat differently from one another.

Most people, of course, are simply born into a community. But millions emigrate, and in a way, I'm one of them. I very much appreciate our borders, because it let me choose to live my life in the community I chose and not to be dictated to by another community that I left. Not that life is perfect here, of course. But it's where I'm happy to be. That's a human freedom that comes as a consequence of having borders. It lets you cross them.

States, of course, also have a role of protecting their citizens. If you travel to North Korea and are arrested and tortured, you would expect the US to take an interest in your case. Why? because you are a US National. You belong to your country (and vice versa) wherever you are. This is so basic that the right to nationality is considered a fundamental human right, enshrined in International UN covenants worshipped by liberals the world over.

States also have the duty to defend their populations when they are at home. That's the basic issue here. You have border controls to keep the bad people at bay basically so you don't have to bring that defense to the communities where people live. If you know the threat is external, then you have an obligation to keep that threat out before it "escapes" into the community. Search people at the borders, which you know they would have to cross at some point, and you don't have to make a random dragnet at home. Police the borders, and you don't have to have a police state.

There are also, of course, other things you might want to keep out of your country as well as terrorists. Drugs, illegal immigrants, agricultural pests, endangered animals being smuggled, you name it. Some of the things that cross borders you want to keep out entirely. Some of them you want to just tax.

In some cases, you might also want to check things going out of your borders. Having border controls can make you a good neighbor.

I think I probably should have through my argument through a little more so I could have been clearer. I agree that the EU won't be expanding infinitely or that it will become a model for future endeavors. I don't particularly think the EU has it right any more than the US does. I was simply using it as an example of people moving towards more open (if still exclusive) borders.

I also (and this is where I think I failed clarity-wise) don't mean to say that borders should be gotten rid of entirely. Obviously there are distinctions between people, and often these distinctions are related to geography. The culture of one group of people can be significantly different from the culture of another group of people, and as such the same form of government might not be ideal for both peoples.

I certainly don't object to people recognizing cultural and political borders, and I agree that they are, in many ways, necessary. I very much disagree, however, with the idea that a person is in any way defined by where they live. Just because I happened to grow up in America does not make me intrinsically different from someone who happened to grow up in Thailand. The culture I'm used to may be different, but my quality as a person, my ability to behave in any particular way, and my political alignment are all completely personal to me.

What I want in terms of a border-less existence is less of a system where there is only one super-nation, or no nations at all, and more of a system where there is a free market of nations. People should be able to choose where they want to live. If I decide that I really agree with the ideal of the people and government of Guatemala, I should be able to just pack up and move there. As should anyone who decides that they really want to live in the US. The idea of 'citizenship' seems to me to be a ridiculous one. What does it matter where I currently live? Just because I may come from Colombia doesn't mean I'm a drug dealer. Just because I may come from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Egypt doesn't mean I'm a terrorist. And I shouldn't be treated as such.

And as far as being protected from potentially hostile foreign nations, why does only one nation care about my well-being? Why does the fact that I was born and raised in the US mean that only the US will come to my aid when I'm in trouble? And why will the US only work to help US citizens? If a Canadian is being held hostage by some force in Azerbaijan (just picked at random, I have nothing against the people of Azerbaijan), why shouldn't the US, as a nation supposedly concerned with human rights and freedoms, be willing to do something? Or any other nation that happens to have assets in a strategic location for extracting the hostage?

Similarly, you point about wanting to be sure to restrict smuggling and such seems to me to be taking the wrong approach. Yes, perhaps we don't want certain things to be within our borders, but the current approach is basically dumping them on our neighbors. Do the Mexicans want to deal with the problems we don't? No. Instead of considering anything outside of our borders to be not our problem, we should realize that all problems have a cause and try to find and alleviate that cause. Not only would that stop the smuggling of undesirable elements into our borders, but it would prevent our neighbors from having to deal with it as well.

Of course I'm sure all this is sounding hopelessly naive and idealistic. But is it really? If one nation took the first step and extended the rights it grants to it's own citizens to all people, that would be a tremendous leap forward in the progress of international human rights. Isn't this basically the idea behind all the 'humanitarian' missions we and other nations have embarked upon? If we buy the line that Iraq was liberated for humanitarian reasons, doesn't that basically mean that the US was doing something very similar to this? Why not take it just a little bit farther?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Just because I happened to grow up in America does not make me intrinsically different from someone who happened to grow up in Thailand. The culture I'm used to may be different, but my quality as a person, my ability to behave in any particular way, and my political alignment are all completely personal to me.

I don't think that anyone would disagree with this. A Thai citizen is as much a human being as an American. All that anyone is saying is that a Thai has a special relationship with Thailand that an American does not. So, for example, a Thai would have citizenship rights in Thailand (I haven't checked, but presumably that includes the right to vote) whereas, an American citizen living in Thailand would not have those rights. If the American wants those rights, he has to declare his loyalty to Thailand and become a Thai citizen.

Notice that I am reversing this deliberately. I detect a bit of a subtle assumption in your post that the rules of nationality operate in favor of countries like the US and are somehow discriminatory against non-Americans. As if being a non-American is somehow a second class citizenship. Of course that isn't the case. The rules are basically the same in all countries. All countries necessarily grant additional political rights to their own citizens that they deny foreign citizens. So, for example, when i lived in the UK, I had no right to vote in the UK for the British government. I could vote for my own government, or I could naturalize and become British. It was my choice.

What I want in terms of a border-less existence is less of a system where there is only one super-nation, or no nations at all, and more of a system where there is a free market of nations. People should be able to choose where they want to live. If I decide that I really agree with the ideal of the people and government of Guatemala, I should be able to just pack up and move there.

As far as I am aware, you can. There might be some restrictions, but I doubt it. Generally, the only countries that have immigration restrictions are countries that feel themselves to be overwhelmed -- e.g. first world nations like European nations and the US. But even then, millions do exactly as you suggest.

The idea of 'citizenship' seems to me to be a ridiculous one. What does it matter where I currently live? Just because I may come from Colombia doesn't mean I'm a drug dealer. Just because I may come from Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Egypt doesn't mean I'm a terrorist. And I shouldn't be treated as such.

What makes you a citizen varies from country to country. It isn't always a given based on the geography where you are born. In US law, being born here will generally give you citizenship rights. But that isn't a universal rule.

Nobody is saying that all Saudis, Afghans, or Egyptians are terrorists. Where on Earth do you get that idea? Citizens of those countries enter the US every day. Yes, we have the right to check people entering the US just as all other countries have the right to check Americans entering those countries. But people still travel.

And as far as being protected from potentially hostile foreign nations, why does only one nation care about my well-being? Why does the fact that I was born and raised in the US mean that only the US will come to my aid when I'm in trouble?

This is something called diplomatic protection. It actually isn't a right that you have. It's a right that your government has and it is completely discretionary. It also isn't that only one country could express an interest. I don't think there is anything in international law that says that. Most states would probably object to a foreign state intervening on behalf of one of its own citizens. That would be seen as interferance. But otherwise, I don't think there would be any legal problem. No, the issue is if you didn't have a nationality, no state would feel any obligation to look after you. You enjoy the protection of your state when here in the US. You should feel lucky that your government would at least consider looking after you if you get in trouble abroad.

And why will the US only work to help US citizens? If a Canadian is being held hostage by some force in Azerbaijan (just picked at random, I have nothing against the people of Azerbaijan), why shouldn't the US, as a nation supposedly concerned with human rights and freedoms, be willing to do something?

Actually, this happens all the time. For example, when Iran kept US diplomats hostage, I believe it was Canada that tried to look after their interests when the US couldn't. It's also not uncommon for allies to rescue the citizens of other countries as well as their own.

Similarly, you point about wanting to be sure to restrict smuggling and such seems to me to be taking the wrong approach. Yes, perhaps we don't want certain things to be within our borders, but the current approach is basically dumping them on our neighbors. Do the Mexicans want to deal with the problems we don't?

You forget that borders work both ways. Mexicans might also like to keep us out, or influences that they don't want in their country. They have that right. So do we.

No. Instead of considering anything outside of our borders to be not our problem, we should realize that all problems have a cause and try to find and alleviate that cause. Not only would that stop the smuggling of undesirable elements into our borders, but it would prevent our neighbors from having to deal with it as well.

This is how the US went to war with Mexico before. If there are problems that originate in Mexico, you can't ignore the border. You have to work with the Mexican government because as soon as you cross the border, that land is as much Mexican as American land is American.

[talisker]

How come there never seems to be any logic behind US security measures? As far as I can remember, the Sept 11 hijackers that entered the USA didn't do so under false identities, so how would fingerprinting have helped? I get the impression that rather than concentrating on controls that will work, the US government like to implement measures that will cause general inconvenience and therefore give the impression that they must be working.

But, as many Americans have said, they're entitled to implement whatever restrictions they want. But I do wonder if there's ever thought given to how these measures will impact foreigners' desire to visit or transit via the USA. You may think a few seconds to give a fingerprint isn't a big deal, but if you imagine coming off a 10 hour flight, standing in a long immigration queue, and then being asked to do something normally associated with criminals, it's easy to understand the effect this can have on visitors. It's more of a pyschological thing than a matter of principal, the feeling that you're going to a country that isn't welcoming you with open arms as a friendly visitor, but one that is reluctantly letting you in, suspicious of your motives. It does seem to reinforce the perception that some Americans believe it's a priviledge for a foreigner to be able to visit the USA, whereas in fact the opposite is true, it's a priviledge for any country, including the USA, to receive foreign visitors.

There are plenty of people who either have to, or specifically want to, visit the USA. These people will continue to come. But for the majority the USA is just one of many potential holiday destinations they can visit, or is one of several countries they can transit through to get somewhere else, or is somewhere they might visit on business rather than use a teleconference etc, and for them it's just been made a less welcoming place, and therefore somewhere they're less likely to visit.

Presumably this is likely to have an impact on the US economy, as well as having a subtle change on how the country is perceived overseas. Perhaps these issues have been considered, who knows?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by talisker:
How come there never seems to be any logic behind US security measures? As far as I can remember, the Sept 11 hijackers that entered the USA didn't do so under false identities, so how would fingerprinting have helped?

...

You may think a few seconds to give a fingerprint isn't a big deal, but if you imagine coming off a 10 hour flight, standing in a long immigration queue, and then being asked to do something normally associated with criminals, it's easy to understand the effect this can have on visitors.

Right. Fingerprinting only will help *after* the crime is done. Well gee, we know who did it, now what?

Does one have to get fingerprinted each and every time they visit? I can imagine some pretty peeved executive types.

[christ]

Originally posted by talisker:
... a matter of principal...

Principle

Principle

PRINCIPLE

[/pet peeve]

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Right. Fingerprinting only will help *after* the crime is done. Well gee, we know who did it, now what?

Does one have to get fingerprinted each and every time they visit? I can imagine some pretty peeved executive types.

A lot of folks have their fingerprints on file. Americans & non-Americans alike. Mostly as the result of a prior arrest (like myself).

All they have to do is 'flag' particular sets of fingerprints and wait for somebody's fingers to match them. Even with the very best fake passport - they won't be getting past the fingerprint screening.

So, no, fingerprinting doesn't just help *after* the crime has been committed - it can prevent crime, as well.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
A lot of folks have their fingerprints on file. Americans & non-Americans alike. Mostly as the result of a prior arrest (like myself).

All they have to do is 'flag' particular sets of fingerprints and wait for somebody's fingers to match them. Even with the very best fake passport - they won't be getting past the fingerprint screening.

So, no, fingerprinting doesn't just help *after* the crime has been committed - it can prevent crime, as well.

Lots of other people (like myself) don't. I'm sure there are plenty of people (edit: not like myself) who don't have their fingerprints on record, or at least haven't been convicted of any crimes, who are still recruit-able by terrorists.

[PacHead]

This thread is pretty damn comical.

Ok, here we are in the midst of a huge war which will last for decades probably, and then we have people posting here talking about open borders, peace and love, blah blah blah.

The people we are fighting do not believe in peace and love, and the war will not be over until one side fully capitulates, and that side will not be the USA, an assesment that most intelligent, realistic minded people would agree with.

Big deal, so we want to finger print visitors from certain countries, so what ? You don't like it, don't visit, for whatever reasons you may have. Our tourism will suffer ? I doubt the USA haters give a crap about if our tourism suffers or our economy. We'll be just fine, thank you very much, but we appreciate your honest concern.

Muslim terrorists have cells in just about every single European country. Anybody watch the news lately ? They're arresting them left & right all the time. Not all the terrorists are looking for "forged" passports inorder to gain entry to the USA. Some of the terrorists already have legitimate European passports, from the countries where they reside. Are some of the posters here aware that some asylum seekers to Europe sometimes mutilate their fingerprints inorder to hide their identity ? We don't need those kind of people here. Let the Euros have 'em. Certain European countries give asylum to just about anybody, even terrorists. Yeah, some of the 9-11 terrorists entered our country legally, and we're taking measures to fix that now.

It's really quite simple. Those who wish to visit the USA, will undergo the extra process which will take a mere couple of minutes, those who wish not to visit, can stay home and rant on some American forum about how crappy the USA is, while using their American software etc.

The EU can continue with their appeasement/hide under a rock/surrender strategy, and we'll continue with our strategy, we'll see who has more success.

Why do the Israelis need a huge fence ? Because they're trying to keep out homicidal maniacs intent on blowing up innocents.

Why do the Americans need tighter border controls ? Because we're trying to keep out homicidal maniacs intent on killing us.

You Europeans should really try some more appeasement. It seemed to work so well for you in WWII, and it's seeming to work really nice for the Spaniards.

[Ayelbourne]

"It's a madhouse! A maaaaaaadhouse!"

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by PacHead:
This thread is pretty damn comical.

So how is fingerprinting helping?
It's helping the same way confiscating fingernail clippers is helping.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
So how is fingerprinting helping?
It's helping the same way confiscating fingernail clippers is helping.

"Weapons of Manicure Destruction"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
A lot of folks have their fingerprints on file. Americans & non-Americans alike. Mostly as the result of a prior arrest (like myself).

Or because they are veterans, like myself, or federal employees, again, like myself.

All veterans who have served since about 1993 also have a file that includes a DNA swab. The purpose is to identify your mangled remains in case your body becomes separated from your dog tags (a la fallujia). But the military told us also that the FBI gets access and the records are kept after discharge.

So you are right. For a hefty chunk of the population, being fingerprinted is not synonymous with being criminals.

[christ]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Why do the Americans need tighter border controls ? Because we're trying to keep out homicidal maniacs intent on killing us.

Stop. Take a deep breath. Think.

No-one is suggesting that you shouldn't have tighter border controls, if that is what you want. The question that has been raised is:

"If one were a homicidal maniac, intent on killing US citizens, would one be caught by the latest round of 'border controls'?"

My proposition is that, if one's fingerprints were on file in the US, one wouldn't attempt to gain entry, one would employ someone else whose fingerprints were not on file in the US. Such employees should be hard to find, but the current US foreign policy seems to be doing its best to adjust that, and to ensure that these recruits are in a ready supply.

Do whatever you want, is the message, but do try and think of the consequences before doing something, because it may turn out to have the effect opposite to that intended, if you are not careful.

You are most definitely right, though - it is your country, and you get the results that you vote for. You like it, you stick with it.

You Europeans should really try some more appeasement. It seemed to work so well for you in WWII, and it's seeming to work really nice for the Spaniards.

Who is appeasing whom? Talking sensibly about the chosen border controls = appeasment?

What is your point about Spaniards? They helped you to invade Iraq, and were bombed for their troubles - so you insult them. Boy, you really are pleasant allies.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by PacHead:
*whole bunch o' stuff*

During the middle of a drawn-out war is exactly when people need to be 'preaching peace and love'. They act as a moderating influence on the other extreme and help to keep things in balance. They also make it less likely that the populace at large is going to de-humanize the enemy which leads to all sorts of atrocious behaviors. Do you really think there's something wrong with respecting life and thinking that everyone deserves to have it? The fact that the people we are fighting don't believe that doesn't mean that we can stop.

As far as terrorists cells in Europe, or course there are. I'm sure there are plenty in the US as well. Not just foreign terrorists either, we have plenty of our own home-grown loonies. I'm sure they're probably being arrested left-and-right as well, it's just not being made public. If they aren't, then we've got a more serious problem than the Europeans, because they, at least, are making progress towards preventing attacks from within their own borders.

An give it up with the 'appeasement'. The Spanish weren't 'appeasing' the terrorists by pulling out of Iraq, they were following the will of the people. The Spanish people never wanted to get into Iraq in the first place. Them going into Iraq was the government 'appeasing' the US against the will of their people. Them leaving, was an exercise in freedom and democracy. And, in case you hadn't noticed, they sent more troops to Afghanistan which is the country that actually has connections to terrorism, unlike Iraq.