More Civil Liberties destroyed....

[bjjones]

New Passport requirements for Western Hemisphere travel, including Mexico

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html

 

[Matthew D]

That has been coming for a while now...

 

[jrkarp]

I don't see how this has anything to to with civil liberties. Most people around the world are used to carrying their passports when they go from country to country.

But I suppose if I lived in the southwest and went to Mexico a lot it might be a little annoying.

/karp

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I don't see how this has anything to to with civil liberties. Most people around the world are used to carrying their passports when they go from country to country.

But I suppose if I lived in the southwest and went to Mexico a lot it might be a little annoying.

/karp

bump....

 

[DAdams91982]

New Passport requirements for Western Hemisphere travel, including Mexico

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html

This is not a civil liberty being taken away... this is just good sense. Everywhere else in the world... if you leave a country... you will need a passport. Why mexico was any different was always beyond me... terrorist come from all over. Say a terrorist had a fake drivers liscense from the US... then flew into mexico... he could go right over the border, and do his damage.

I say bout time.

Adams

 

[Nullifidian]

Actually in Europe you don't need a passport when travelling from one EU member to another usually.

This will hurt the Mexican tourism industry for sure. But then again, I don't really give a crap about the Mexican tourism industry.

 

[DAdams91982]

Actually in Europe you don't need a passport when travelling from one EU member to another usually.

This will hurt the Mexican tourism industry for sure. But then again, I don't really give a crap about the Mexican tourism industry.

Im stationed in germany right now... and everytime I leave here... to ANY other country... I have to have either my passport, or military ID with Leave papers with me to get back in. And this is to other EU countries also.

Adams

 

[Matthew D]

That was what I was thinking also.. I know it was always like that when I was in Germany but that was 87-89

 

[smoke eater]

think it opnly applies to eu citizens

 

[jrkarp]

And again, in any case, how is requiring a passport to travel to and from Mexico an infringement on civil liberties?

/karp

 

[Matthew D]

well I don't see how it does.. makes crossing the border a bigger pain but to me that is not that big of a deal.. I have never really enjoyed customs anyway..

 

[bjjones]

Definition: Civil liberties - Freedoms that protect the individual from arbitrary government interference (as with the freedom of speech and movement).

First and foremost, this new passport requirement does not just apply to Mexico, but to Canada, the Carribean, Panama and Bahamas as well. Furthermore, this is a issue regarding civil liberties, due to the fact that this is one of the many attempts since the Patriot Act to track and monitor U.S citizens travel habits. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA, also known as the 9/11 Intelligence Bill), signed into law on December 17, 2004, mandated that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan that required U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport, or other secure document when entering the United States.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl458.108

 

[jrkarp]

Definition: Civil liberties - Freedoms that protect the individual from arbitrary government interference (as with the freedom of speech and movement).

First and foremost, this new passport requirement does not just apply to Mexico, but to Canada, the Carribean, Panama and Bahamas as well. Furthermore, this is a issue regarding civil liberties, due to the fact that this is one of the many attempts since the Patriot Act to track and monitor U.S citizens travel habits. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA, also known as the 9/11 Intelligence Bill), signed into law on December 17, 2004, mandated that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan that required U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to present a passport, or other secure document when entering the United States.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl458.108

Note the word "arbitrary" in that definition. Arbitrary means "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle."

Requiring a passport traveling to and from a foreign country seems to me something that is a result of reason and principle, and probably necessity in this day and age. Hardly seems like something required because of chance, whim, or impulse.

The 4th Amendment's requirement of probable cause and a warrant before police can search someone's home is a perfect example. Requiring a duly issued warrant sworn before a neutral magistrate makes the police demonstrate necessity and/or reason, and prevents them from acting on a whim or chance.

/karp

 

[Brooklyn]

The 4th Amendment's requirement of probable cause and a warrant before police can search someone's home is a perfect example. Requiring a duly issued warrant sworn before a neutral magistrate makes the police demonstrate necessity and/or reason, and prevents them from acting on a whim or chance.

That's funny, seeing as how those laws are constantly trampled on, and in recent years states have passed laws which allow cops to search a car or home based on "reasonable suspicion" which is a much more lenient standard than "probable cause." Basically, cops and the government they work for can get away with almost anything, and this has been proven time and again. This new passport requirement is no surprise.

 

[CDB]

Note the word "arbitrary" in that definition. Arbitrary means "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle."

Seeing as how the people in question are not suspected on any level of committing a crime, it seems rather arbitrary to me. Unless of course everyone is a suspect now, which wouldn't surprise me. What I would find totally, utterly and unbelievably shocking is if a terrorist could get ahold of a fake passport, or some other means to circumvent this infallible and effective policy. And once that happens the answer the government will come up with is more arbitrary power over citizens who are not now, nor ever will be a threat of any kind to society. And when the next attack comes, people will finally, hopefully, question why the government is spending billions upon billions of dollars tracking and spying on its own law abiding citizens when the threat is so obviously located somewhere else. Or maybe it's just a gauge of who the government really thinks the enemy is.

The 4th Amendment's requirement of probable cause and a warrant before police can search someone's home is a perfect example. Requiring a duly issued warrant sworn before a neutral magistrate makes the police demonstrate necessity and/or reason, and prevents them from acting on a whim or chance.
/karp

the neutrality of magistrates is highly doubtful, and there are a lot of convenient 'exceptions' to the fourth ammendment these days. Like the drug exception for example. Magistrates are just as suceptible to wanting to support this or that cause as anyone else.

 

[jrkarp]

Seeing as how the people in question are not suspected on any level of committing a crime, it seems rather arbitrary to me.

I must have been mistaken. Isn't a passport a pretty common requirement when traveling from country to country?

/karp

 

[AgnosticFront]

DAMN THAT SUCKS! so now i gotta have a PASSPORT TO GO TO MEXICO?!


YOU BASTARDS!

 

[jrkarp]

That's funny, seeing as how those laws are constantly trampled on, and in recent years states have passed laws which allow cops to search a car or home based on "reasonable suspicion" which is a much more lenient standard than "probable cause." Basically, cops and the government they work for can get away with almost anything, and this has been proven time and again. This new passport requirement is no surprise.

Actually the reasonable suspicion standard comes from case law not statute and refers to cars and people walking down streets, where people have a diminished expectation of privacy. There is never any reasonable suspicion standard for searching homes. There are circumstances in which a warrant is not required to enter a home, such as exigent circumstances like chasing a fleeing felon, emergency situations where it is necessary to protect a person from harm, and to prevent the destruction of certain types of evidence.

Like I've said before, to you everything is a conspiracy, so nothing I say is going to make a difference. But what you said above is blatently wrong.

And once again, how is subjecting US citizens to a requirement that is minimally invasive and commonplace throughout the world a bid deal?

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

the neutrality of magistrates is highly doubtful, and there are a lot of convenient 'exceptions' to the fourth ammendment these days. Like the drug exception for example. Magistrates are just as suceptible to wanting to support this or that cause as anyone else.

What drug exception are you talking about?

/karp

 

[CDB]

I must have been mistaken. Isn't a passport a pretty common requirement when traveling from country to country?

/karp

Yes. What does that have to do with it? If warrantless searches were pretty common in a lot of countries, would that make them okay? Freedom of movement is the issue. That being, I'm not breaking any laws nor am I planning on doing so, nor have I given anyone cause to think I am going to do so, so where I'm going, what I'm doing and how long I plan to do it is none of the government's business. Nor do I see how tracking law abiding citizens will help fight terrorists, or even domestic criminals of any kind. The government has this kindergarden, gym class mentality towards citizens. One or two **** up and the whole class needs to be punished. It's wrong, ethically, morally and legally, and it's dangerous too.

Laws that are too easy to break to be reasonable, or that are unnecessary and ineffective breed disrespect for the law and the government that enforces the law. And rightly so.

 

[AgnosticFront]

i agree with your post... but i just wanted to say.

OMG THOSE CHICKS ARE HOT!!

 

[CDB]

What drug exception are you talking about?

/karp

The convenient way that normal fourth ammendment protections seem to get ignored in drug cases. Don't answer within ten seconds of a knock, expect to have the door busted down. Does your usage of power fall within a certain pattern? Expect to have your door kicked down. Don't expect the police to identify themselves, just submit to the ninja looking jackbooted thugs tear assing into your house with automatic weapons. The "drug exception to the fourth ammendment" is a loose way of referring to how drug prohibition and similar laws erode constitutional protections, in that almost any case you look up involving fourth ammendment issues and drugs always seems to favor the state unless the violation is so blatant it can't be ignored. It's a commonly used piece of legal jargon, I'm surprised you haven't heard it. Look up the case of Donald Scott, California. He was killed by police is a very, very questionable drug raid. Thankfully this one actually got some attention.

 

[CDB]

i agree with your post... but i just wanted to say.

OMG THOSE CHICKS ARE HOT!!

I got plenty more. My collection of avatars just topped 100 as I was doing laundry this morning.

 

[DAdams91982]

Yes. What does that have to do with it? If warrantless searches were pretty common in a lot of countries, would that make them okay? Freedom of movement is the issue. That being, I'm not breaking any laws nor am I planning on doing so, nor have I given anyone cause to think I am going to do so, so where I'm going, what I'm doing and how long I plan to do it is none of the government's business. Nor do I see how tracking law abiding citizens will help fight terrorists, or even domestic criminals of any kind. The government has this kindergarden, gym class mentality towards citizens. One or two **** up and the whole class needs to be punished. It's wrong, ethically, morally and legally, and it's dangerous too.

Laws that are too easy to break to be reasonable, or that are unnecessary and ineffective breed disrespect for the law and the government that enforces the law. And rightly so.

Exactly how are they tracking you??? With a passport??? You're mistaken then... cause then you show your passport, no information is taken, it is just put beneath a blacklight for authenticity, stamped, and your send on your way... NO information is ever recorded to "Track your movment"

Adams

 

[jrkarp]

Yes. What does that have to do with it? If warrantless searches were pretty common in a lot of countries, would that make them okay? Freedom of movement is the issue. That being, I'm not breaking any laws nor am I planning on doing so, nor have I given anyone cause to think I am going to do so, so where I'm going, what I'm doing and how long I plan to do it is none of the government's business. Nor do I see how tracking law abiding citizens will help fight terrorists, or even domestic criminals of any kind. The government has this kindergarden, gym class mentality towards citizens. One or two **** up and the whole class needs to be punished. It's wrong, ethically, morally and legally, and it's dangerous too.

Laws that are too easy to break to be reasonable, or that are unnecessary and ineffective breed disrespect for the law and the government that enforces the law. And rightly so.

Warrantless searches are prohibited by our constitution. Travel without a passport is not.

Your argument is fatally flawed and makes no sense. There is no liberty interest in unrestricted international travel. Passports are a common, universally accepted requirement for international travel. They are minimally intrusive and what burden does it impose on you to have to carry one?

There are certainly threats to our civil liberties but requiring passports for international travel is not one of them.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

The convenient way that normal fourth ammendment protections seem to get ignored in drug cases. Don't answer within ten seconds of a knock, expect to have the door busted down. Does your usage of power fall within a certain pattern? Expect to have your door kicked down. Don't expect the police to identify themselves, just submit to the ninja looking jackbooted thugs tear assing into your house with automatic weapons. The "drug exception to the fourth ammendment" is a loose way of referring to how drug prohibition and similar laws erode constitutional protections, in that almost any case you look up involving fourth ammendment issues and drugs always seems to favor the state unless the violation is so blatant it can't be ignored. It's a commonly used piece of legal jargon, I'm surprised you haven't heard it. Look up the case of Donald Scott, California. He was killed by police is a very, very questionable drug raid. Thankfully this one actually got some attention.

There are certainly abuses of power that go on... It is common anytime power is vested in any human being. However, they are far from universal and they are blown out of proportion by the media. If you knew the scope and extent of the protections that we enjoy you would be amazed.

Improperly seized evidence is commonly suppressed (thrown out) by trial level judges. There are more checks on police power than you realize. I have read far more cases than you have and you would be surprised how often they go against the state.

And frankly, if the police have a warrant and the suspect doesn't answer a knock, they are jusitified in forcing entry. Would you prefer that they give the suspect time to arm himself and set up an ambush? Police have a job where every day they go to work could be the last day of their lives.

/karp

 

[jrkarp]

I got plenty more. My collection of avatars just topped 100 as I was doing laundry this morning.

That is hot ****.

/karp

 

[CDB]

That is hot ****.

/karp

I'm a fan of tits and ass. Just so relaxing to look at.

As for the other issues, we disagree because at heart, at the base our beliefs we're totally different it seems. Minimally intrusive doesn't matter to me. If I haven't hurt anyone or their property, nor have I given any hint that I'm about to, any intrusion is too much in my mind. Maybe I'm too antisocial, maybe others are too submissive. Bottom line though is that if I'm minding my own business and not bothering anyone, I expect the government to do the same thing. They can pave roads and hunt down robbers, rapists and murderers to their hearts' content and I won't object, but anything beyond that gets my balls in a knot.

 

[AgnosticFront]

I'm a fan of tits and ass. Just so relaxing to look at.

As for the other issues, we disagree because at heart, at the base our beliefs we're totally different it seems. Minimally intrusive doesn't matter to me. If I haven't hurt anyone or their property, nor have I given any hint that I'm about to, any intrusion is too much in my mind. Maybe I'm too antisocial, maybe others are too submissive. Bottom line though is that if I'm minding my own business and not bothering anyone, I expect the government to do the same thing. They can pave roads and hunt down robbers, rapists and murderers to their hearts' content and I won't object, but anything beyond that gets my balls in a knot.

I AGREE %100

 

[jrkarp]

I'm a fan of tits and ass. Just so relaxing to look at.

As for the other issues, we disagree because at heart, at the base our beliefs we're totally different it seems. Minimally intrusive doesn't matter to me. If I haven't hurt anyone or their property, nor have I given any hint that I'm about to, any intrusion is too much in my mind. Maybe I'm too antisocial, maybe others are too submissive. Bottom line though is that if I'm minding my own business and not bothering anyone, I expect the government to do the same thing. They can pave roads and hunt down robbers, rapists and murderers to their hearts' content and I won't object, but anything beyond that gets my balls in a knot.

I agree with what you say. The thing is that if you are crossing international borders, you are not minding your own business like you are when you are sitting on your back porch. You are voluntarily engaging in an activity that can present a significant security risk to this country and its citizens, as 9/11 taught us. Passports are a common and unburdensome way to help ensure better border security. Do you think that we should not require driver's licenses for people to drive? Should we not require people engaging in the practice of medicine or law to have licenses?

I firnly believe that unreasonable and burdensome government regulation and interference with people going about their day to day lives is contrary to the spirit of what this country stands for. However, reasonable, unintrusive or minimally instrusive regulation of things like border crossings hardly counts. If the government required US citizens traveling abroad to account for their movements, plans, hotel reservations, meals, expenditures, etc when going to and coming from a foreign country, I would be among the most outraged. However, since passports are a universally accepted requirement for international travel, requiring them now is hardly different from requiring drivers to have a driver's license and is not an infringement on our liberty.

/karp

 

[CDB]

I agree with what you say. The thing is that if you are crossing international borders, you are not minding your own business like you are when you are sitting on your back porch. You are voluntarily engaging in an activity that can present a significant security risk to this country and its citizens, as 9/11 taught us.

And there's the disagreement. Traveling is not inherently harmful to anyone or anything, so it counts as minding your own business in my mind. A law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone, no matter where they travel.

Passports are a common and unburdensome way to help ensure better border security. Do you think that we should not require driver's licenses for people to drive? Should we not require people engaging in the practice of medicine or law to have licenses?

Yes to all. I've seen enough drunks and other various idiots scraped off the road when I volunteered for ambulance duty to know the government does a **** job of teaching people to drive, and it'd probably be better handled in the private sector where schools and permit issuing agencies had some level of accountability. I also see little to no benefit of the state licensing lawyers and doctors. Here's why:

In any other industry and related laws, say steel and the tariffs that apply, people realize that when tariffs go up it's because the steel industry wanted that for their own benefit. No one really argues that point. People get pissed off when you expand the analysis though to show the protectionist aspects of other laws. I'd say it's very, very arguable whether or not state licensing of doctors, lawyers, plumbers, or any other profession has increased the quality of the people in those fields. However those laws do one thing for sure, they raise the price of entry into the field and thus restrict the supply, relatively, of practioners. This allows people in those professions to charge higher prices for services than they otherwise could. There's no quality assurance duty I can see the government doing that private watchdog groups, both in and out of the respective industries, can't accomplish. However, private groups and self policing do lack one vital ability that only the government can provide: the ability to force people to buy from an industry cartel. What other purposes licensing may serve, it's not unreasonable to point out that if an industry aggitated for the law, they probably have something to benefit and their motives probably aren't totally altruistic.

I firnly believe that unreasonable and burdensome government regulation and interference with people going about their day to day lives is contrary to the spirit of what this country stands for. However, reasonable, unintrusive or minimally instrusive regulation of things like border crossings hardly counts. If the government required US citizens traveling abroad to account for their movements, plans, hotel reservations, meals, expenditures, etc when going to and coming from a foreign country, I would be among the most outraged. However, since passports are a universally accepted requirement for international travel, requiring them now is hardly different from requiring drivers to have a driver's license and is not an infringement on our liberty.

/karp

We have quite a different view of liberty.

 

[jrkarp]

Traveling is not inherently harmful to anyone.

However, since the possible consequences of completely unregulated travel can be severe, the benefits of reasonable regulation far outweigh the burdens imposed.

You are right, though, that a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone. However, since we don't have a way to tell the law abiding citizens from the suicidal terrorists that are a threat, how is it so unreasonable to at least require a positive form of ID from people entering our country?

My argument about gun ownership has always been that as a law abiding citizen I am no threat to anyone no matter how many or what kind of guns I own. However, I don't mind them running a background check on me when I buy one to make sure that I don't have felony convictions. It's reasonable and unintrusive. And trust me, I'm one of those people who they'd have to kill before they could take my guns away.

/karp

 

[CDB]

Traveling is not inherently harmful to anyone.

However, since the possible consequences of completely unregulated travel can be severe, the benefits of reasonable regulation far outweigh the burdens imposed.

This ignores the possibility of any other approach, like taking the massive amounts of money used to regulate the travel of everyone and concentrate it on regulating, tracking or otherwise monitoring or working against people who are causing trouble or who are likely to do so.

You are right, though, that a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone. However, since we don't have a way to tell the law abiding citizens from the suicidal terrorists that are a threat, how is it so unreasonable to at least require a positive form of ID from people entering our country?

Because it's so easy to falsify or get around that it's useless, and every cent spent on it is essentially wasted.

My argument about gun ownership has always been that as a law abiding citizen I am no threat to anyone no matter how many or what kind of guns I own. However, I don't mind them running a background check on me when I buy one to make sure that I don't have felony convictions. It's reasonable and unintrusive. And trust me, I'm one of those people who they'd have to kill before they could take my guns away.
/karp

I used to be of that opinion. Might still be, but it occurs to me if someone wants a gun and they can't buy it legally, they'll buy it some other way, or find another weapon to use. I'm more and more leaning towards the opinion that any restriction on law abiding citizens that aren't hurting others, or behaving so negligently as to be at a high risk of hurting someone else, is unjustified and in the end counterproductive. I don't doubt that there may be practical benefits that would mean sidelining that opinion on a law by law basis, but international travel does not seem to be one.

 

[jrkarp]

I used to be of that opinion. Might still be, but it occurs to me if someone wants a gun and they can't buy it legally, they'll buy it some other way, or find another weapon to use. I'm more and more leaning towards the opinion that any restriction on law abiding citizens that aren't hurting others, or behaving so negligently as to be at a high risk of hurting someone else, is unjustified and in the end counterproductive. I don't doubt that there may be practical benefits that would mean sidelining that opinion on a law by law basis, but international travel does not seem to be one.

As for the guns, I agree that they can be acquired by illegal means, but at least the background check makes it more difficult and certainly narrows the selection of weapons available.

As for the international travel, well, it is true that they can be falsified, but it still makes illegal entry into this country more difficult. You and I are not going to agree on the issue in any case.

However, since pretty much every other country requires passports for entry, even if we did not require them for reentry, American citizens would still have to carry them for international travel outside of North America. And again, having to get one is such a minor inconvenience and expense I just don't see what the big deal is and I really don't see how it is an infringement on liberty. But like I said, you are I are not going to see eye to eye.

/karp

 

[CDB]

As for the guns, I agree that they can be acquired by illegal means, but at least the background check makes it more difficult and certainly narrows the selection of weapons available.

I'd dispute both points. The selection of guns on the black market isn't effected by background checks or other guns laws, except maybe to increase the black market availability of certain hard to obtain guns. First their price rises, people want to make money so they source and sell them, the supply increases and the price goes down and settles at a certain level with increased availability. And as for making them more difficult to buy, if this were the case gun laws, drug laws, alcohol prohibition and every other such law would work. They don't. Prohibitions don't work, ever, for a variety of reasons.

However, since pretty much every other country requires passports for entry, even if we did not require them for reentry, American citizens would still have to carry them for international travel outside of North America. And again, having to get one is such a minor inconvenience and expense I just don't see what the big deal is and I really don't see how it is an infringement on liberty. But like I said, you are I are not going to see eye to eye.

/karp

Probably not, but I'm a cynic, and someone famous said the cynics are always right.

 

[glenihan]

give every single person a gun ... there its done don't worry about background checks at all .. after about 10 years or so people will realize they can't just shoot random people because if they miss or even if they hit they will probably get shot at in retaliation .. after this 10 year period all the hot heads and macho assholes who can't handle guns will have killed themselves off .. and now the little old lady doesn't have to be scared walking down the street, because even if she doesn't have her gun on her .. the guy thinking of robbing her knows she at least owns a gun *because everyone would* and there is a good chance she is carrying it, so he should stay away

 

[jrkarp]

I'd dispute both points. The selection of guns on the black market isn't effected by background checks or other guns laws, except maybe to increase the black market availability of certain hard to obtain guns. First their price rises, people want to make money so they source and sell them, the supply increases and the price goes down and settles at a certain level with increased availability. And as for making them more difficult to buy, if this were the case gun laws, drug laws, alcohol prohibition and every other such law would work. They don't. Prohibitions don't work, ever, for a variety of reasons.

It is easier and more convenient to walk into a gun store (even a Walmart) to buy a gun than it is to find one on the black market, unless you have an arms dealer across the hall. And there is certainly a better selection at many of the gun stores I go to, particularly when you consider that most of them will special order any gun you want, as long as you have a credit card to put down a deposit.

I also don't call background checks when buying firearms a prohibition. Prohibitions are generally ineffective at completely preventing the conduct that they seek to prohibit, but it is inarguable that the prohibition on say, steroids, has prevented a good number of people from using them (and I'm not saying the prohibition is right). Sure, those who are intent on using them will find a way (and it's usually trivially easy), but the illegality of some conduct is a deterrant to at least some people who would otherwise engage in it.

/karp

 

[AgnosticFront]

you would be suprised how easy it is to find stuff like that if you know the right people... its easier then going to walmart in some cases and better if your a criminal. no tracing it back...

 

[CDB]

It is easier and more convenient to walk into a gun store (even a Walmart) to buy a gun than it is to find one on the black market, unless you have an arms dealer across the hall. And there is certainly a better selection at many of the gun stores I go to, particularly when you consider that most of them will special order any gun you want, as long as you have a credit card to put down a deposit.

It's easier and more convenient for you. The kind of people who want an illegal gun for nefarious purposes would find it easier to talk to a 'friend.' It's a very, very big mistake people make when approaching the idea of prohibition, but the truth is a law making something illegal rarely affects the availability of that thing. Those who want it can find it with little or no hassel.

I also don't call background checks when buying firearms a prohibition. Prohibitions are generally ineffective at completely preventing the conduct that they seek to prohibit, but it is inarguable that the prohibition on say, steroids, has prevented a good number of people from using them (and I'm not saying the prohibition is right). Sure, those who are intent on using them will find a way (and it's usually trivially easy), but the illegality of some conduct is a deterrant to at least some people who would otherwise engage in it.
/karp

And it's likewise an alure to some people who would otherwise not engage in the behavior, which is one of the reasons the effects of prohibition are negligible. Background checks are a prohibition: they are a prohibition on sales of firearms to some people. And it's more of a joke than anything else really. The idea that someone who is willing to take a gun and point at another human being and say, "Give me your money, or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs or I'll kill you," or, "I'm just going to kill you for the fun of it," is going to become a CPA or a guidance counselor because the government says they can't have a gun is laughable. The only people who obey minor rules like gun control laws are the ones who are already obeying the major rules, like "Thou shall not kill." Those who are disobeying rules like "Thou shall not kill," are not going to give two shits about the rule that says "Thou shall not own this model of rifle."

Likewise, those who are willing to come to this country, learn to fly and then pilot a plane into a building are not going to be bothered or put off by having to falsify some documents, or entering the country illegally without documents of any kind. So the law puts a "minimal burden" on people having to pay for passports, and another "minimal burden" on them to pay all the government drones to administer the system to accomplish... what? I guess what you're not getting from me is this question: You say the system provides some security, I ask how does it do that, and if so is it worth the total cost of compliance? I've yet to be convinced.

 

[jrkarp]

And it's likewise an alure to some people who would otherwise not engage in the behavior, which is one of the reasons the effects of prohibition are negligible. Background checks are a prohibition: they are a prohibition on sales of firearms to some people. And it's more of a joke than anything else really. The idea that someone who is willing to take a gun and point at another human being and say, "Give me your money, or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs or I'll kill you," or, "I'm just going to kill you for the fun of it," is going to become a CPA or a guidance counselor because the government says they can't have a gun is laughable. The only people who obey minor rules like gun control laws are the ones who are already obeying the major rules, like "Thou shall not kill." Those who are disobeying rules like "Thou shall not kill," are not going to give two shits about the rule that says "Thou shall not own this model of rifle."

Ok, I see what you are saying and it is basically the same argument that I have against most gun control laws. But it still makes it a little more difficult, even if that difference is trivial. Since it is not very intrusive, if a background check prevents even one convicted felon from obtaining a gun or one person with mental illness from getting a gun and thereby saves a life, I don't really care, since the check is quick and just searches public records anyway. If they want to do a 10 day (or even a 10 minute) inquiry into why I want the gun, then I have a problem.

Likewise, those who are willing to come to this country, learn to fly and then pilot a plane into a building are not going to be bothered or put off by having to falsify some documents, or entering the country illegally without documents of any kind. So the law puts a "minimal burden" on people having to pay for passports, and another "minimal burden" on them to pay all the government drones to administer the system to accomplish... what? I guess what you're not getting from me is this question: You say the system provides some security, I ask how does it do that, and if so is it worth the total cost of compliance? I've yet to be convinced.

Again, yes, people can falsify passports (hopefully if (and this is a big if) we implement better passports they will be harder to fake). However, it still makes entry into the country a bit more difficult and a bit more risky for those who would enter illegally (ignoring our porous border with Mexico). The utility of the slight deterrence (which is certainly better than completely open borders) outweighs (to me at least, a I suspect to the majority of Americans) the minimal cost of compliance.

I guess part of my view in this matter is that sovereign nations have the right to regulate travel across their borders. The rules that are going to be applied here will apply to all persons crossing the border and impose such a small burden on those who do seek to cross the border I just don't see how it is a big deal to comply.

/karp

 

[CDB]

Ok, I see what you are saying and it is basically the same argument that I have against most gun control laws. But it still makes it a little more difficult, even if that difference is trivial. Since it is not very intrusive, if a background check prevents even one convicted felon from obtaining a gun or one person with mental illness from getting a gun and thereby saves a life, I don't really care, since the check is quick and just searches public records anyway. If they want to do a 10 day (or even a 10 minute) inquiry into why I want the gun, then I have a problem.

And what about those who perhaps could have used a gun, but weren't allowed to own one. Their lives? Let's say you know a guy who got loaded one night and took a piss. Turns out it was near a school. Even though there wasn't a single kid in the school, this is enough in some jurisdictions to get you branded a sex offender and your name on one of those public lists. You would also be denied firearm ownership, which is bad if you need one for defense. How about those nice waiting periods, where people, mostly women, who are being stalked or threatened have to sit on their asses with no defense against a possible psycho who has their number?

Again, yes, people can falsify passports (hopefully if (and this is a big if) we implement better passports they will be harder to fake). However, it still makes entry into the country a bit more difficult and a bit more risky for those who would enter illegally (ignoring our porous border with Mexico). The utility of the slight deterrence (which is certainly better than completely open borders) outweighs (to me at least, a I suspect to the majority of Americans) the minimal cost of compliance.

I guess part of my view in this matter is that sovereign nations have the right to regulate travel across their borders. The rules that are going to be applied here will apply to all persons crossing the border and impose such a small burden on those who do seek to cross the border I just don't see how it is a big deal to comply.

/karp

It's a big deal because it will do diddly **** to stop terrorists, so what's the point? The government has limited resources as do most people, and approaching any problem from a cost no object point of view is a bad idea, and this includes acceptance of things that are seen as minimally intrusive and low cost. There is no point to them, and after a while you have a state of affairs where there are a billion such minimally restrictive measures taken, all of them sucking massive amounts of money into their administration and none of them making any appreciable difference or achieving their said goals. Then we get a nice bombing with a few thousand people killed, and everyone wants to know why these big bloated agencies didn't stop the terrorists.

The law will not make it more difficult for terrorists to get into this country at all. It will make it slightly more difficult for law abiding citizens to travel, that's it. You seem to be viewing these terrorists as regular people, like they're going to say, "Well, ****, I was going to bomb the Alamo on Wednesday but Holy ****!, that passport requirement is just too much. Guess I'll go surfing." If someone is willing to bomb us or attack us in some other way, and has the resources to do so and is a legitimate threat, the passport requirement isn't going to do diddly **** to stop them. For a person willing to disregard the rule 'thou shall not kill' en masse, the rule 'thou shall not travel without a passport' means absolutely nothing. It will give the goverment some more of our money, it will allow the government to expand its power over its own citizens a little more, it will impose a higher cost of travel on law abiding citizens, it will create more jobs for government drones to live off tax dollars and it will create another layer of completely inneffective 'security' that'll make people who don't know better smile until a terrorist group kills another few thousand people. And then, everyone will be amazed at how we could spend so much money, have so many security measures that are so impossible to get around, like passports, and still get hit.

And tourism across the borders will probably be down a bit. The inherent problem with 'security' measures and laws like this is that they are by nature targeted at the wrong people.

 

[jrkarp]

And what about those who perhaps could have used a gun, but weren't allowed to own one. Their lives? Let's say you know a guy who got loaded one night and took a piss. Turns out it was near a school. Even though there wasn't a single kid in the school, this is enough in some jurisdictions to get you branded a sex offender and your name on one of those public lists. You would also be denied firearm ownership, which is bad if you need one for defense. How about those nice waiting periods, where people, mostly women, who are being stalked or threatened have to sit on their asses with no defense against a possible psycho who has their number?

Hey, you're preaching to the choir on the waiting periods.

On the sex offender thing, you are greatly oversimplifying matters with that example. Being labeled a sex offender, I think, usually requires commission of a felony, and even if not, there is something called petitioning for a relief from a civil disability, which a person branded as a sex offender in your example would have a decent chance at. I would be interested in knowing in what jurisdictions the behavior described in your example could get one labeled a sex offender. If that really does happen, it is an extreme punishment for a minor offense, and it is wholly unjust.

But when you commit a crime, you knowingly give up certain rights that others, who have no committed crimes, do have. If your crime is serious enough, your give up your right to liberty, to vote, to hold certain jobs, and to own a gun. It does suck, but is a foreseeable consequence of committing a crime.

It's a big deal because it will do diddly **** to stop terrorists, so what's the point? The government has limited resources as do most people, and approaching any problem from a cost no object point of view is a bad idea, and this includes acceptance of things that are seen as minimally intrusive and low cost. There is no point to them, and after a while you have a state of affairs where there are a billion such minimally restrictive measures taken, all of them sucking massive amounts of money into their administration and none of them making any appreciable difference or achieving their said goals. Then we get a nice bombing with a few thousand people killed, and everyone wants to know why these big bloated agencies didn't stop the terrorists.

The law will not make it more difficult for terrorists to get into this country at all. It will make it slightly more difficult for law abiding citizens to travel, that's it. You seem to be viewing these terrorists as regular people, like they're going to say, "Well, ****, I was going to bomb the Alamo on Wednesday but Holy ****!, that passport requirement is just too much. Guess I'll go surfing." If someone is willing to bomb us or attack us in some other way, and has the resources to do so and is a legitimate threat, the passport requirement isn't going to do diddly **** to stop them. For a person willing to disregard the rule 'thou shall not kill' en masse, the rule 'thou shall not travel without a passport' means absolutely nothing. It will give the goverment some more of our money, it will allow the government to expand its power over its own citizens a little more, it will impose a higher cost of travel on law abiding citizens, it will create more jobs for government drones to live off tax dollars and it will create another layer of completely inneffective 'security' that'll make people who don't know better smile until a terrorist group kills another few thousand people. And then, everyone will be amazed at how we could spend so much money, have so many security measures that are so impossible to get around, like passports, and still get hit.

No, I understand the terrorists are not normal, law abiding people. But to be honest, even if they will get across the border anyway, I don't like the idea of them fucking walking across in broad daylight with nobody even checking to make sure they at least have a passport.

And tourism across the borders will probably be down a bit. The inherent problem with 'security' measures and laws like this is that they are by nature targeted at the wrong people.

But how do we target the right people? They don't wear uniforms, they don't carry a flag.

Look, we can go back and forth but we're not going to get anywhere. I don't think we're that far apart in our beliefs (even though you would probably disagree with that sentiment). Part of my reasoning is shaped by having just graduated from law school, where I have literally read hundreds of cases where excessive burdens and intrusions were overturned by the courts and reasonable and minimal ones were not. I just don't see getting worked up over a minor inconvenience, but your point about minor inconveniences adding up is well taken.

My view is that the (admittedly) minimal utility from the passport requirement is worth the minimal cost of compliance. It's a universally accepted means of crossing borders around the world, and like I said, as a sovereign nation, our government is well within its rights to require it.

/karp

 

[CDB]

My view is that the (admittedly) minimal utility from the passport requirement is worth the minimal cost of compliance. It's a universally accepted means of crossing borders around the world, and like I said, as a sovereign nation, our government is well within its rights to require it.

/karp

The state is within its power to do so, I would agree with that. I just think it's a worthless gesture, and worthless gestures are what the state is all about because they're easier to implement than effective policies. As for targetting the right people, it would take very little time to work up a profile on the type of people who are most likely to commit terrorist acts against the US. The problem is it would include a religious/ethnic profile, which everyone gets themselves in a tizzy over. Personally I would stop all immigration of people from muslim countries and muslims in general to this country and do a serious crackdown on communities of illegal immigrants to start off. It would be indelicate, but I seriously wouldn't give a ****. I've also heard some CIA talking heads propose working with the FBI to set up stings where terrorists think they are coming to a safe house in the US, only to walk into a trap. That would require a lot of human intelligence and undercover work, and cooperation between the CIA and FBI, but it's a nice idea because the suspects get arrested on US soil.

 

[jrkarp]

As for targetting the right people, it would take very little time to work up a profile on the type of people who are most likely to commit terrorist acts against the US. The problem is it would include a religious/ethnic profile, which everyone gets themselves in a tizzy over. Personally I would stop all immigration of people from muslim countries and muslims in general to this country and do a serious crackdown on communities of illegal immigrants to start off. It would be indelicate, but I seriously wouldn't give a ****. I've also heard some CIA talking heads propose working with the FBI to set up stings where terrorists think they are coming to a safe house in the US, only to walk into a trap. That would require a lot of human intelligence and undercover work, and cooperation between the CIA and FBI, but it's a nice idea because the suspects get arrested on US soil.

I agree completely with the profiling thing, but like you said, people get their panties in a bunch out over it. My view is that if the majority of your enemies fit into a certain profile (in this case, male muslims from the middle east), you are using pure common sense by targeting them for inspection and scrutiny. There is no malice; as Dennis Miller said, it's just being minimally observant.

However, the ACLU would flip **** over that and there are plenty of judges who would block enforcement of any federal law or policy that involved that kind racial profiling, so I don't see it as a viable option.

/karp

 

[CDB]

I agree completely with the profiling thing, but like you said, people get their panties in a bunch out over it. My view is that if the majority of your enemies fit into a certain profile (in this case, male muslims from the middle east), you are using pure common sense by targeting them for inspection and scrutiny. There is no malice; as Dennis Miller said, it's just being minimally observant.

However, the ACLU would flip **** over that and there are plenty of judges who would block enforcement of any federal law or policy that involved that kind racial profiling, so I don't see it as a viable option.

/karp

I see it as viable, if difficult. It's funny how politicians aren't willing to follow appeasement policies with dictators but they do follow such policies with home grown idiot organizations.