55 immigrants arrested at the border by new surveillance program

[88m3]

Yes they have. I'm saying they're separate issues, though.

It's a fallacy to say that security technology shouldn't be used to enforce the border because it may be turned against citizens. They're two separate issues. There should be oversight, and if it's being abused, then of course that should be dealt with.

No rational people actually believe the military shouldn't have advanced weapons because they can easily be used against the public, though. We recognize that it can (and has) been abused domestically, but limiting defence capabilities to only the level an average citizen can put up a fight against isn't a realistic option if you want to be able do defend your country.

Why even let it it get to that point? They came up with programs to scan peoples phones when they're pulled over for any reason, now they want to go through peoples phones at the border, and everything else under the sun when it comes to computers. Citizens rights are side stepped everyday as security measures. If we're not proactive we're going to end up like China. The Supreme Court is sure as fukk not going t save us. We have border patrol operating well inside our borders acting as a police state within a police state as it is.

I'm much less concerned about the later but I don't want surplus filtering into local police departments other than body armor and M4s.

 

[Pressure]

im pretty fukking tired of the left's pathetic position on illegal immigration. and you know what the worst part about it is? they don't even have the balls to come out and say what it is

i would make a thread asking posters in here to explain what it is, if i wasnt 100% sure i'd get bushed

Surveillance doesn't just surveil illegal immigrants.

It seems you're finally giving up the facade that you yourself are liberal.


Nap's back.

 

[Pressure]

What you're saying is in essence no different from saying the military shouldn't have such advanced weapons and tactics because it may be turned against citizens.

No because these are both law enforcement. You're reaching.

There are already cases where the the intelligence community has used fake cell towers in conjunction with law enforcement to surveil citizens.

 

[the cac mamba]

Surveillance doesn't just surveil illegal immigrants.

It seems you're finally giving up the facade that you yourself are liberal.


Nap's back.

liberals' position on illegal immigration is treason in the hope of securing a voting bloc. there's no moral high ground there at all

or feel free to enlighten me what's the difference between the democrats' position on illegal immigration, and open borders

 

[Nobu]

Why even let it it get to that point?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Why let it get to the point where this tech is being considered to help enforce the border? I don't know...obviously it would be ideal if 50k people weren't attempting to illegally enter every month. But in light of the circumstances, it should be no surprise that the government tries to leverage tech to enforce the border eventually.

They came up with programs to scan peoples phones when they're pulled over for any reason, now they want to go through peoples phones at the border, and everything else under the sun when it comes to computers. Citizens rights are side stepped everyday as security measures. If we're not proactive we're going to end up like China. The Supreme Court is sure as fukk not going t save us. We have border patrol operating well inside the borders acting as a police state within a police state.

I'm much less concerned about the later but I don't want surplus filtering into local police departments other than body armor and M4s.

Agree with all of this.

I'm much less concerned about the later but I don't want surplus filtering into local police departments other than body armor and M4s.

This part makes me think you still don't get my position.

I am in complete agreement that there must be oversight so it's not being abused domestically on citizens.

I do not, however, think that means it shouldn't be used for border defence/enforcement.

The military buys M4s, armored vehicles, etc. that sometimes end up in local PDs. That is bad. However, it does not mean that the military should not be allowed to purchase, train with, and use them for appropriate military uses.

 

[Pressure]

liberals' position on illegal immigration is treason in the hope of securing a voting bloc. there's no moral high ground there at all

Treason?



Immigrants can't vote until they are citizens.


Meanwhile the GOP is attacking the voting rights of citizens and you're quiet and never involved I those threads. Must be because they're targeting minorities.

 

[Nobu]

No because these are both law enforcement.

You are correct in a very vague sense.

Border enforcement is part of law enforcement, true. But by it's nature it's also part of national defence.

Hence, it would be more worrying to see your local PD in Kansas use invasive surveillance tools on Americans than it is to see border patrol intercepting communications of foreigners in the act of sneaking in illegally. Obviously foreigners should not have the same right to communicate privately as citizens (or else counter espionage would be impossible).

There are already cases where the the intelligence community has used fake cell towers in conjunction with law enforcement to surveil citizens.

You're right. I still don't get why that's a reason to not use the tech to surveil non-citizens, at the border, in the act of illegally evading border security, though. It sounds like they should just stop surveilling citizens. It's like calling for the military to lose their weapons because they can/have been abused.

 

[the cac mamba]

Treason?



Immigrants can't vote until they are citizens.


Meanwhile the GOP is attacking the voting rights of citizens and you're quiet and never involved I those threads. Must be because they're targeting minorities.

your deflecting is admirable, but ill take the time to address it. republican gerrymandering is blatant cheating. i dont like their push for voter ID laws, but that's beatable by getting a fukkin ID election day is not a surprise anywhere in the country. i also think state IDs should be free for every citizen

you like how Nap is back? maybe i should get him in here to drop one of his countless fact based articles about how illegal immigration that the democrats push for hurts the black community

 

[Pressure]

your deflecting is admirable, but ill take the time to address it. republican gerrymandering is blatant cheating. i dont like their push for voter ID laws, but that's beatable by getting a fukkin ID election day is not a surprise anywhere in the country. i also think state IDs should be free for every citizen

you like how Nap is back? maybe i should get him in here to drop one of his countless fact based articles about how illegal immigration that the democrats push for hurts the black community

Nothing to deflect. Much of what you're applauding was put into affect under a democratic president yet you're using this as examples of democrats being weak on immigration.

When in reality what you consider being tough is just paying lip service to racists like yourself.

 

[the cac mamba]

Nothing to deflect. Much of what you're applauding was put into affect under a democratic president yet you're using this as examples of democrats being weak on immigration.

When in reality what you consider being tough is just paying lip service to racists like yourself.

when all else fails

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...oretta-scott-king_us_58c83a50e4b05675ee9c5adb

:jaymelo: to coretta scott king, another racist cac who knew that illegal immigration would be bad for the people who are already here

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Ever since the Patriot Act was passed America has passed more and more laws erode privacy and security of its citizens. So given that this tech will just be another tool to eventually surveil US citizens on US soil, why wouldn't I be concerned? Why wouldn't I expect that eventuality? Allowing institutions to erode in general. Continuously undermining the fabric of society that actually works. Those two issues give tech like this and laws that allow this tech easy reasons to be acceptable. There isn't much justification other than "security". That "security" comes at the cost of liberty.

 

[Pressure]

You are correct in a very vague sense.

Border enforcement is part of law enforcement, true. But by it's nature it's also part of national defence.

Hence, it would be more worrying to see your local PD in Kansas use invasive surveillance tools on Americans than it is to see border patrol intercepting communications of foreigners in the act of sneaking in illegally. Obviously foreigners should not have the same right to communicate privately as citizens (or else counter espionage would be impossible).



You're right. I still don't get why that's a reason to not use the tech to surveil non-citizens, at the border, in the act of illegally evading border security, though. It sounds like they should just stop surveilling citizens. It's like calling for the military to lose their weapons because they can/have been abused.

A couple things here from my perspective.

None of this is being used for national defense in the sense I believe you're using it and the military would certainly step in fill the void in those threats.

I agree that they shouldn't use these types of surveillance on citizens, but it's unrealistic to believe that's actually the case. History shows us that law enforcement is keen on using more military tools on citizens than less.

 

[DEAD7]

That "security" comes at the cost of liberty.

Sums it up...
... and as with so many other issues some Americans believe the cost is worth it, others don’t.


Those currently in power believe it’s worth it.
Elections have consequences etc.

 

[Nobu]

I agree that they shouldn't use these types of surveillance on citizens, but it's unrealistic to believe that's actually the case. History shows us that law enforcement is keen on using more military tools on citizens than less.

I agree. That's why I don't think stopping them from using this tech on the border will stop them from using it on citizens if that's what they want to do.

 

[Pressure]

I agree. That's why I don't think stopping them from using this tech on the border will stop them from using it on citizens if that's what they want to do.

I agree completely.

I also don't have qualms about the surveillance at the border citizen or not, but I know that without proper oversight anything that works on the border with regard to surveillance will end up being used on citizens.