4 ms·

I'd be less opposed to it if it was equally applied to everyone and not just immigrants. It becomes another tool to disenfranchise, disable and disadvantage a

I'd be less opposed to it if it was equally applied to everyone and not just immigrants. It becomes another tool to disenfranchise, disable and disadvantage a subset of society.

paxys 8y ago
Government monitoring everyone via facial recognition isn't cool either.
_iyig 8y ago
Illegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Every human has rights under the law and international law. Just because someone can't vote doesn't mean they have inalienable rights that states can disrespect.
- AngryData 8y ago
  Where does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to mean only citizens. And the only purpose of such a thing was to suppress the voice of these people for the benefit of those already in power.
  - tinktank 8y ago
    Wow, that's an interesting point. The UK will still allow commonwealth and EU citizens to vote in some elections but the Turdy's (Tory's) are trying to get the laws changed to prevent that for precisely the same reason you state.
  - tropo 8y ago
    Well, to be fair, where does it say that anybody can vote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... So, if your state legislature chose to appoint electors by lottery, that would be acceptable under the US Constitution. Other options: appoint the oldest people, appoint the richest people, appoint the people who live closest to the center of the state, appoint the heaviest people, appoint the people with the longest tongues...
  - _iyig 8y ago
    You're right, the issue is more nuanced than I had assumed. Federal law (not the Constitution) prohibits non-citizens from voting in national elections [0]. However, it seems like states can establish their own rules for state and local suffrage, and non-citizens can vote under certain circumstances in states like Maryland [1]. Personally, I like the citizenship requirement for voting. It requires voters who weren't born in the U.S. to demonstrate a certain level of investment in the system they're seeking to change. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Noncitizen_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    You need to consider how the US was originally intended to be organized, which is radically different than what is has become. States were envisioned as practically independent nations which would be tied together by an extremely minimal set of shared rules and obligations. The constitution doesn't really lay out many rules for states at all. What it does lay out is mostly just things preventing states from taking on national rules like entering into alliances, printing their own money, or declaring war. The constitution focuses on laying out those minimal set of laws for the federal government. So it makes no sense for the constitution to tell states how they can or cannot vote. This was antithetical to the entire notion of what the United States was supposed to be. It was a state level matter. As an aside this is also part of the motivation for institutions like the electoral college - to ensure a strong separation between state internal affairs and their influence on the federal level, which could affect other states.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      > it makes no sense for the constitution to tell states how they can or cannot vote. This was antithetical to the entire notion of what the United States was supposed to be The United States was originally "supposed" to be made up of a number of slave states where a large chunk of the population wasn't allowed to vote (but their numbers still counted for seat allocation). Everything follows from there - they went to war with the US government, lost, and had their independence taken away to ensure fair treatment of the black population. Without the Federal government a number of those states would revert to apartheit.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        I don't really agree with your perception of what the current state of affairs would be without the federal government, nor the ideology behind the founding of the US. However, that's tangential to the important point - which you do indirectly hit on. The swap from a state based system to a federal based system most fundamentally changes the scope of operation. Good things, such as the direct termination of slavery, can affect the entire nation at once. On the other hand, this power also comes with an equal but opposite negative. In that bad things can now also affect the entire nation at once. So for instance not that long ago in the past we were enforcing eugenics from federal level down. In the famous supreme court case Buck vs Bell, where the US federal government ruled in favor of eugenics, supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.". Interestingly enough that ruling has never actually been overturned. The reason that eugenics fell out of fashion lay largely with a certain German enthusiast. If not for him it's not unreasonable to imagine the federal level dystopia that we were starting to consider going down. When things are enacted at the state level this gives people the option of getting away from the insanity. When things happen at the top, leaving your country is usually not a practical option. And so too for the question I was responding to. Should it be legal for foreigners to vote in US elections? Maybe, maybe not. It would probably depend heavily on the state in question. But thanks to our system, that question can no longer be answered by states. In 1996 the federal government made it illegal at the national level.
- tinktank 8y ago
  I agree with your comment but am unsure what is the point you're trying to make? My point was that these techniques might be used to later disenfranchise immigrants, legal or otherwise.
noobermin 8y ago
I made a comment below about how does this violate privacy rights? I think we all feel at a certain level, making it easier to identify people feels unnatural and unnerving, may be because for long swaths of history we had a certain level of anonymity just by the nature of reality. Should that be something that is our right? Does that mean we should explicitly impede the efficiency of the government in doing things like identify people? I sort of know where I fall, but that is the discussion that we should be having. Because one could read the law or at least think about the logic of the situation and not see this as really being worse in terms of surveillance. If you're in a public place, you have no guarantee of privacy. Therefore, the question should move to whether this is in fact "okay" or "wrong".
- tinktank 8y ago
  Nowhere in my previous comment does it say that I'm opposed to lack of privacy in public so I'm not sure how to respond to your comment -- that's not my issue. My issue is that someone shouldn't be targeted for monitoring on the basis of their immigration status. Either do it for everyone or nobody. If you're going to do it for everyone, then have a technical framework in place to ensure (to the best of our ability today) that the system cannot be abused by an errant clown, and have the procedures to provide transparent auditing etc possible and enforce these audits. Otherwise, it's my opinion we'll end up with a corrupt, abused system. Interesting intellectual question for you -- if I have no rights to privacy on going outside, what are your views on the government making it illegal for me to obscure my identity when I'm in public (say, with a mask?)
  - noobermin 8y ago
    I agree with you on the monitoring bit. That is a bigger question, more important question is who could the state monitor without a warrant. I guess the nuance is that this tech is not about surveillance/monitoring but it is about identification. Of course, that implies that one had to get the picture in the first place, which brings up that question about who could the state monitor, but I guess that's separate question from whether this tech is good or bad. As for the mask deal, I agree with you, that someone has a right to obscure their identity if they want to.
alexnewman 8y ago
Good news. The purpose of the program is for catching any felon, not just immigrant felons. So I guess you are for it?

I'd be less opposed to it if it was equally applied to everyone and not just immigrants. It becomes another tool to disenfranchise, disable and disadvantage a subset of society.

paxys 8y ago

Government monitoring everyone via facial recognition isn't cool either.

_iyig 8y ago

Illegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.

noobermin 8y ago
Every human has rights under the law and international law. Just because someone can't vote doesn't mean they have inalienable rights that states can disrespect.
AngryData 8y ago
Where does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to mean only citizens. And the only purpose of such a thing was to suppress the voice of these people for the benefit of those already in power.
- tinktank 8y ago
  Wow, that's an interesting point. The UK will still allow commonwealth and EU citizens to vote in some elections but the Turdy's (Tory's) are trying to get the laws changed to prevent that for precisely the same reason you state.
- tropo 8y ago
  Well, to be fair, where does it say that anybody can vote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... So, if your state legislature chose to appoint electors by lottery, that would be acceptable under the US Constitution. Other options: appoint the oldest people, appoint the richest people, appoint the people who live closest to the center of the state, appoint the heaviest people, appoint the people with the longest tongues...
- _iyig 8y ago
  You're right, the issue is more nuanced than I had assumed. Federal law (not the Constitution) prohibits non-citizens from voting in national elections [0]. However, it seems like states can establish their own rules for state and local suffrage, and non-citizens can vote under certain circumstances in states like Maryland [1]. Personally, I like the citizenship requirement for voting. It requires voters who weren't born in the U.S. to demonstrate a certain level of investment in the system they're seeking to change. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Noncitizen_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  You need to consider how the US was originally intended to be organized, which is radically different than what is has become. States were envisioned as practically independent nations which would be tied together by an extremely minimal set of shared rules and obligations. The constitution doesn't really lay out many rules for states at all. What it does lay out is mostly just things preventing states from taking on national rules like entering into alliances, printing their own money, or declaring war. The constitution focuses on laying out those minimal set of laws for the federal government. So it makes no sense for the constitution to tell states how they can or cannot vote. This was antithetical to the entire notion of what the United States was supposed to be. It was a state level matter. As an aside this is also part of the motivation for institutions like the electoral college - to ensure a strong separation between state internal affairs and their influence on the federal level, which could affect other states.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > it makes no sense for the constitution to tell states how they can or cannot vote. This was antithetical to the entire notion of what the United States was supposed to be The United States was originally "supposed" to be made up of a number of slave states where a large chunk of the population wasn't allowed to vote (but their numbers still counted for seat allocation). Everything follows from there - they went to war with the US government, lost, and had their independence taken away to ensure fair treatment of the black population. Without the Federal government a number of those states would revert to apartheit.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      I don't really agree with your perception of what the current state of affairs would be without the federal government, nor the ideology behind the founding of the US. However, that's tangential to the important point - which you do indirectly hit on. The swap from a state based system to a federal based system most fundamentally changes the scope of operation. Good things, such as the direct termination of slavery, can affect the entire nation at once. On the other hand, this power also comes with an equal but opposite negative. In that bad things can now also affect the entire nation at once. So for instance not that long ago in the past we were enforcing eugenics from federal level down. In the famous supreme court case Buck vs Bell, where the US federal government ruled in favor of eugenics, supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.". Interestingly enough that ruling has never actually been overturned. The reason that eugenics fell out of fashion lay largely with a certain German enthusiast. If not for him it's not unreasonable to imagine the federal level dystopia that we were starting to consider going down. When things are enacted at the state level this gives people the option of getting away from the insanity. When things happen at the top, leaving your country is usually not a practical option. And so too for the question I was responding to. Should it be legal for foreigners to vote in US elections? Maybe, maybe not. It would probably depend heavily on the state in question. But thanks to our system, that question can no longer be answered by states. In 1996 the federal government made it illegal at the national level.
tinktank 8y ago
I agree with your comment but am unsure what is the point you're trying to make? My point was that these techniques might be used to later disenfranchise immigrants, legal or otherwise.

noobermin 8y ago

I made a comment below about how does this violate privacy rights? I think we all feel at a certain level, making it easier to identify people feels unnatural and unnerving, may be because for long swaths of history we had a certain level of anonymity just by the nature of reality. Should that be something that is our right? Does that mean we should explicitly impede the efficiency of the government in doing things like identify people? I sort of know where I fall, but that is the discussion that we should be having. Because one could read the law or at least think about the logic of the situation and not see this as really being worse in terms of surveillance. If you're in a public place, you have no guarantee of privacy. Therefore, the question should move to whether this is in fact "okay" or "wrong".

tinktank 8y ago
Nowhere in my previous comment does it say that I'm opposed to lack of privacy in public so I'm not sure how to respond to your comment -- that's not my issue. My issue is that someone shouldn't be targeted for monitoring on the basis of their immigration status. Either do it for everyone or nobody. If you're going to do it for everyone, then have a technical framework in place to ensure (to the best of our ability today) that the system cannot be abused by an errant clown, and have the procedures to provide transparent auditing etc possible and enforce these audits. Otherwise, it's my opinion we'll end up with a corrupt, abused system. Interesting intellectual question for you -- if I have no rights to privacy on going outside, what are your views on the government making it illegal for me to obscure my identity when I'm in public (say, with a mask?)
- noobermin 8y ago
  I agree with you on the monitoring bit. That is a bigger question, more important question is who could the state monitor without a warrant. I guess the nuance is that this tech is not about surveillance/monitoring but it is about identification. Of course, that implies that one had to get the picture in the first place, which brings up that question about who could the state monitor, but I guess that's separate question from whether this tech is good or bad. As for the mask deal, I agree with you, that someone has a right to obscure their identity if they want to.

alexnewman 8y ago

Good news. The purpose of the program is for catching any felon, not just immigrant felons. So I guess you are for it?